Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): I have to inform the House that the address of 10 January, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as electoral commissioners Pamela Joan Gordon for the period of four years; Sir Neil William David McIntosh KBE for the period of four years; Jonathan Glyn Mathias for the period of five years; Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of five years; James Samuel Younger for the period of six years; and Graham John Zellick for the period of five years; and further praying that Her Majesty will appoint James Samuel Younger to be the chairman of the Electoral Commission for the period of six years, was presented to Her Majesty who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS]

Read the Third time, and passed.

STANDING ORDERS

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:—

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 1, line 24, leave out 'and Wales'. 1

Standing Order 1, line 30, leave out subsection (d) 2

Standing Order 1, line 34, at end insert— 3
'(f) the Greater London Authority;'

Standing Order 1, line 34, at end insert— 4
'In Wales

(a) the council of a county,
(b) the council of a county borough,
(c) the council of a community or group of communities or the community meeting of a community which has no separate council;'

Standing Order 1, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert— 5
'a council for a local government area;'

Standing Order 1, line 108, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 118. 6

Standing Order 4A, line 18, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 19 and insert— 7
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government areas'.

Standing Order 4A, line 28, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 29 and insert— 8
'(in Wales) the counties or county boroughs or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 4A, line 42, leave out from second 'or' to 'copies' in line 43 and
insert— 9
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 4A, line 47, leave out '(in Scotland) the islands area or district' and
insert— 10
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 5, line 5, after 'and' insert 'the counties or county boroughs in'. 11

Standing Order 6, line 9, leave out from 'England' to 'parish' and insert— 12
'or the county or county borough in Wales and the'.

Standing Order 7, line 6, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 13

Standing Order 7, line 6, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 14

Standing Order 7, line 9, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 15

Standing Order 10, line 14, leave out '(in Scotland) the islands area or district' and
insert— 16
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 10, line 23, leave out from second 'or' to 'in' in line 24 and insert— 17
'(in Wales) the counties or county boroughs or (in Scotland) the local government areas'.

Standing Order 14, line 6, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 18

Standing Order 14, line 7, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 19

Standing Order 14, line 10, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 20

Standing Order 16, line 9, leave out '20 miles' and insert '32 kilometres'. 21

Standing Order 16, line 11, leave out '20 miles' and insert '32 kilometres'. 22

Standing Order 16, line 19, leave out from 'England' to 'parish' in line 20 and insert— 23
', London borough or county or county borough in Wales and the'.

Standing Order 16, line 24, at end add— 24
'(2) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'

Standing Order 17, line 10, leave out '300 yards' and insert '275 metres'. 25

Standing Order 20, line 6, leave out '300 yards' and insert '275 metres'. 26

Standing Order 20, line 6, at end add— 27
'unless after reasonable inquiry the identity of any such persons cannot be ascertained'.

Standing Order 25, line 20, leave out from 'borough' to end and add— 28
', district in England or county or county borough in Wales'.

Standing Order 27, line 12, leave out from second 'or' to 'in' in line 13 and insert— 29
'(in Wales) of each county or county borough or (in Scotland) of each local government area'.

Standing Order 27, line 23, leave out from 'and' to `so' in line 24 and insert— 30
`(in Wales) of each county or county borough or (in Scotland) of each local government area'.

Standing Order 27, line 27, leave out from 'or' to end of line 28 and insert— 31
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 27, line 45, leave out 'one inch to the mile or of'. 32

Standing Order 27, line 52, leave out from 'or' to 'and' in line 53 and inser— 33
'(in Wales) of the county or county borough or (in Scotland) of the local government area'.

Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out '(in Scotland) each islands area or district' and insert— 34
'(in Wales) each county or county borough or (in Scotland) each local government area'.

Standing Order 27, line 79, leave out 'eleven feet' and insert '3.4 metres'. 35

Standing Order 27, line 98, at end add— 36
'(7) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'

Standing Order 27A, line 12, leave out from 'bill,' to 'of in line 16 and insert— 37
'(i) the information referred to in Part II of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 293) (referred to below as "Schedule 4"), and so much of the information referred to in Part I of that Schedule as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effect of the works and as the promoters can reasonably be expected to compile; or
(ii) such'.

Standing Order 27A, line 40, leave out from first 'paragraph' to end of line 41 and insert— 38
'6 of Part I and paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 4'.

Standing Order 27A, line 59, leave out '3' and insert '4'. 39

Standing Order 27A, line 63, leave out from 'Planning' to 'with' in line 64 and insert '(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999'. 40

Standing Order 27A, line 65, leave out '3' and insert '4'. 41

Standing Order 29, line 5, leave out 'six inches to the mile' and insert '1/10,000'. 42

Standing Order 30, line 3, leave out 'one inch to the mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 43

Standing Order 30A, line 7, leave out 'one inch to a mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 44

Standing Order 30A, line 18, leave out 'one inch to a mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 45

Standing Order 36, line 11, leave out 'and Wales'. 46

Standing Order 36, line 13, at end insert— 47
'(aa) any county or county borough in Wales with the proper officer of the county or borough;'.

Standing Order 39, line 30, leave out 'Scottish' and insert 'Scotland'. 48

Standing Order 39, line 32, leave out 'Welsh' and insert 'Wales'. 49

Standing Order 47, line 30, leave out from 'England' to end and insert— 50
London boroughs and counties and county boroughs in Wales'.

Standing Order 48, line 2, leave out 'four inches to a mile' and insert '1/15,000'. 51

Standing Order 48, line 19, leave out 'a quarter of an inch to every 100 feet', and insert '1/5,000'. 52

Standing Order 48, line 21, leave out 'a quarter of an inch to every 100 feet', and insert '1/5,000'. 53

Standing Order 48, line 32, leave out from 'stated' to end of line 33 and insert 'in kilometres and metres'. 54

Standing Order 50, line 3, leave out 'miles and furlongs' and insert 'kilometres'. 55

Standing Order 50, line 6, leave out 'one mile' and insert '1.6 kilometres'. 56

Standing Order 50, line 13, leave out '800 yards' and insert '750 metres'. 57

Standing Order 52, line 9, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 58

Standing Order 52, line 13, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 59

Standing Order 52, line 16, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 60

Standing Order 52, line 25, leave out 'miles and furlongs' and insert 'kilometres'. 61

Standing Order 55, line 3, leave out 'one inch to every 100 feet' and insert '1/1,250'. 62

Standing Order 55, line 26, leave out 'five feet' and insert '1.5 metres'. 63

Standing Order 56, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert 'metres or parts of a metre'. 64

Standing Order 57, line 7, leave out from 'in' to 'at' in line 8 and insert— 65
`metres or parts of a metre'.

Standing Order 57, line 30, leave out '800 yards' and insert '750 metres'. 66

Standing Order 59, line 8, leave out 'one inch to every 330 feet' and insert '1/5,000'. 67

Standing Order 59, line 9, leave out 'one inch to every 40 feet' and insert '1/500'. 68

Standing Order 59, line 18, leave out '200 yards' and insert '180 metres'. 69

Standing Order 61, line 17, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 18 and insert— 70
'(in Wales) of every county or county borough or (in Scotland) of every local government area'.

Standing Order 61, line 32, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 33 and insert— 71
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 61, line 49, at end add— 72
'(4) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'.

Standing Order 62, line 15, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 16 and insert— 73
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 62, line: 94, at end insert— 74
`(3) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county.'

Standing Order 65, line 28, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 29 and insert— 75
'(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.

Standing Order 69, line 3, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 76

Standing Order 81, line 10, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 77

Standing Order 82, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 78

Standing Order 84, line 4, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 79

Standing Order 86, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 80

Standing Order 87, line 6, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 81

Standing Order 88, line 6, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 82

Standing Order 89, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 83

Standing Order 89, line 7, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 84

Standing Order 97, line 1, leave out 'and Wales'. 85

Standing Order 97, line 2, after 'borough' insert 'or county or county borough in Wales'. 86

Standing Order 97, line 3, leave out 'or borough' and insert ', borough or county'. 87

Standing Order 98, line 1, after 'county" insert— 88
'or (in Wales) any county or county borough'.

Standing Order 98, line 2, leave out 'such county' and insert 'its administrative area'. 89

Standing Order 98, line 5, leave out 'such county' and insert 'that area'. 90

Standing Order 98, line 8, after 'borough' insert— 91
`or (in Wales) any county or county borough'.

Standing Order 98, line 14, at end add— 92
'(3) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'.

Standing Order 100, line 1, leave out from 'any' to 'against' in line 2 and insert— 93
'drainage body within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act 1991 petitions'.

Standing Order 103, line 6, leave out from 'Selection' to '; three' in line 7. 94

Standing Order 103, line 9, leave out from 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 95

Standing Order 103, line 9, at end add— 96
'(2) Unless the Committee of Selection otherwise orders, the members nominated to the committee shall continue to be members of the committee for the remainder of the Parliament.'.

Standing Order 120, line 9, leave out from 'declare,' to 'in' in line 10 and insert— 97
'that I have no personal or constituency interest'.

Standing Order 123, line 8, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 98

Standing Order 132, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 99

Standing Order 136A, line 30, at end insert— 100
'(5) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county, the Greater London Authority were the council of the county and the councils of London boroughs were councils of districts in the county.'.

Standing Order 147, line 8, leave out 'Transport' and insert— 101
'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 147, line 10, leave out Transport' and insert— 102
'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.

Standing Order 152, line 6, leave out fifteen inches' and insert '38 centimetres'. 103

Standing Order 164, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 104

Standing Order 164, line 4, leave out 'written' and insert 'clearly set out'. 105

Standing Order 175, line 3, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 106

Standing Order 181, line 9, leave out 'Mr' and insert `the'. 107

Standing Order 182, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert `the'. 108

Standing Order 191A, line 15, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'.
109

Standing Order 204A, line 13, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'.
110

Standing Order 209, line 9, at end insert— 111
'(2) When the time for delivering notices, or making deposits, expires on a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or any bank holiday, the time shall be extended to the next day following which is not such a day'.

Standing Order 235, line 2, leave out 'Scottish' and insert 'Scotland'. 112

Appendix A: Form referred to in Standing Orders 13 and 61

Page 125, leave out line 5 to line 66 on page 126 and insert— 113

"Dear Sir or Madam,

[Short title of bill]

We [have applied] [intend to apply] to Parliament [this] [next] session for leave to introduce this bill.

We understand that you have an interest in the property mentioned in the Table set out below and that your interest is as stated in Part[s] I [and II] of that Table. If the bill is passed, the property mentioned in Part I of the Table, or a right to use it, will be liable to be acquired compulsorily under the powers of the resulting Act [and the property mentioned in Part II of the Table will be liable to the imposition of an improvement charge].

A plan [and section] relating to the purposes of the bill, together with a book of reference relating to it, [was] [were] [will be, on or before 20th November] deposited for public inspection with [here insert the officers of the local authorities with whom deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 27].

A copy of so much of the plan [and section] as relates to [here insert the parish or other area in accordance with Standing Order 36] in which the property in which you have an interest is situated, together with a book of reference relating to it, [has been] [will be on or before 20th November] deposited for public inspection with [here insert the officers of the local authorities with whom deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 36].

On that plan the property [is] [will be] designated by the number or numbers in the Table set out below. If that Table contains any error or misdescription, will you please let us know as soon as you can.

Copies of the bill, or the relevant parts of it, [have been] [will be on or before 4th December] deposited for public inspection and for sale at the [here insert the several offices at which deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 4A].

[We intend that the bill shall provide that, notwithstanding section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, you may be required to sell and convey a part only of your property, numbered [here insert number of numbers] on the deposited plan.]

[We intend that the bill shall exclude section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 and shall substitute for it a provision—

(a) restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a house or building to cases where the part can be taken without material detriment to the house or building; and
(b) restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a park or garden belonging to a house to cases where the part can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house.]

You may object to the bill by depositing a petition against it. If you wish us to do so, we shall be glad to let you know the latest date on which you may deposit a petition in either House.

For the moment we can let you know that the latest date for depositing a petition against a bill is—

(a) in the first House, [here insert current date] in the case of the House of Lords, and [here insert current date] in the case of the House of Commons; and
(b) in the second House, the tenth day after that on which the bill receives its first reading in that House.

In the case of a late bill, the rule in paragraph (b) above applies to a petition in either House. If the latest date turns out to be a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, a bank holiday or a day on which the House does not sit, the latest date may be postponed.
We enclose for your use copies of the standing orders of both Houses of Parliament relating to the time and method for presenting petitions in opposition to bills.
If you need any further information, or any help in preparing a petition, you should get in touch with the Private Bill Office in either House (telephone number 020 7219 3231 in the House of Lords and 020 7219 3250 in the House of Commons).

Yours faithfully,"

—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered,

That the following Standing Order be made:—

"Consents required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

25A.—(1) In the case of a bill promoted by the Greater London Authority, Transport for London or the London Development Agency there shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on or before 27th November the following documents, as appropriate, namely—

(a) where the relevant consent provision applies to the bill, copies of the pre-deposit consents;
(b) where the relevant consent provision does not apply, a statement to that effect.

(2) The relevant consent provision for the purposes of paragraph (1) above is—

(a) in the case of a bill promoted by the Greater London Authority, paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act");
(b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 to the 1999 Act;
(c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, paragraph 5 of Schedule 6A to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act") (as inserted by Schedule 25 to the 1999 Act).

(3) In the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, Transport for London or the London Development Corporation there shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on 11th December or as soon as practicable thereafter the following documents, as appropriate, namely—

(a) where the relevant consent provision applies to the bill—

(i) copies of the pre-deposit consents and post-deposit confirmations of consents; or
(ii) if confirmation of consent has not been given, a statement that the relevant withdrawal provision applies; or
(iii) if confirmation of consent is given conditionally on the amendment of the bill, a statement that the relevant amendment provision applies;
(b) where the relevant consent provision does not apply, a statement to that effect.

Paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply to a bill promoted by the council of a London borough. In this paragraph "pre-deposit consent" includes a consent given in accordance with the relevant consent provision after deposit of the bill.

(4) The relevant consent provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

(a) in the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, section 79(2) of the 1999 Act;
(b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(2) of the 1999 Act;
(c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(2) of the 1998 Act.

(5) The relevant withdrawal provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

(a) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(3) of the 1999 Act;
(b) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(3) of the 1998 Act.

(6) The relevant amendment provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

(a) in the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, section 79(4) of the 1999 Act;
(b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(4) of the 1999 Act;
(c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(4) of the 1998 Act.".—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Victims of Violence

Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement about Government programmes to support the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [149948]

Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement about Government programmes to support the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [149953]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): A number of initiatives have been put in place which are in keeping with the recommendations of the Bloomfield report, "We Will Remember Them", including the establishment of the family trauma centre, funding for groups supporting victims and the establishment of the Northern Ireland memorial fund. Last Thursday, I announced another significant funding package of £12 million, including an additional £3 million to the Northern Ireland memorial fund over the next three years.

Mr. McCabe: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the practice whereby paramilitary organisations force people to relocate within Northern Ireland or, indeed, to leave the Province altogether. I do not wish to prejudge the findings of our inquiry, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all that he can to end such disgraceful behaviour and to ensure that the plight of the victims is properly recognised?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because I welcome the Select Committee's investigation of the issue. The practice is one of the blights on the face of Northern Ireland. It represents a denial of the human rights and the civic dignity of every individual who is subject to such practices by paramilitary groups. The practice should stop immediately. Clearly, it is more


easily stopped when all members of the community stand against it, and the report of the Northen Ireland Affairs Committee will help in understanding the issue. I am sure that report will point helpfully to a solution of the problem.

Mr. Salter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the excellent work done by Victim Support (Northern Ireland) in providing help and support to nearly 40,000 victims of crime each and every year?

Mr. Ingram: I unreservedly support that work. I recently announced an extra £1.1 million over the next three years for Victim Support (Not thern Ireland). Those who carry out the work on behalf of Victim Support (Northern Ireland) do a very difficult and often thankless job. The additional money will hellp to provide an even better and more professional service for the victims of crime. I ask all hon. Members from Northern Ireland to encourage any of their constituents who are the victims of crime to avail themselves of the services provided by this worthwhile organisation.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I thank the Minister and welcome the £12 million grant that he has announced. Does he agree chat, for far too long, no proper assessment has been made of the rights and needs of the victims of terrorist violence? No amount of money can compensate the innocent for the suffering that they have endured. Will he assure me that, as the facts emerge, the Government will be prepared to reconsider the adequacy of the amount that he has announced?

Mr. Ingram: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It was not until recently, with the publication of the Bloomfield report, that a proper assessment was made of the extent and nature of victimhood in Northern Ireland. The problem runs across the community. Thousands of families have been damaged in many different ways over the past 30 years. I also share his view that no amount of money can ever deal with the problem. However, we have made a start, and I thank him for welcoming our initiatives so far. Although he is not standing at the next general election, I look forward to continuing to receive representations from him. I know that he is very active in his own community, where he deals with some serious problems, and I recently talked to him about specific issues. The matter does not rest with what we have done so far.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I welcome the Minister's statement and the measures that he has taken, including the extra money, will he seriously consider the early victims of violence, who received a tiny amount of compensation? One woman lost her husband, who was a member of the Territorial Army, when he was murdered in South Armagh. She had five sons and the only compensation she received for them was £500 for each boy. There are similar examples throughout the Province. I make a plea—as I have before—that those early victims will be considered.

Mr. Ingram: For so long, the victims have been ignored and have sometimes been used for political advantage. Since we have tackled the issue, there has been a greater awareness of the extent and nature of the

problem. The difficulty is knowing where to draw the line and by how much we should assist such people. For that reason, we have given substantial sums—£5 million to date—to the Northern Ireland memorial fund so that it can begin to consider both the depth of the problem and what help can be given to the early victims of the violence. However, it does not matter whether victims are early, intermediate or late; they are still victims of the violence and should be treated sympathetically.

Mr. John M. Taylor: When will the Minister do something to help the pre-1982 police widows and their families who face a measly and arbitrary £1,000 for each year of widowhood and an unresolved tax status? They believe that they are forgotten families who are ignored by the Government—and it looks as though they are right. What is he going to do about them?

Mr. Ingram: I shall try to be gentle, but what did the hon. Gentleman's Government do about those victims? Nothing. We inherited a blank sheet from the previous Government. We have advanced the issue sympathetically and constructively. The Patten report referred to the situation pre-1982. We conducted an in-depth study under the chairmanship of John Steele, an eminent ex-civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office, and its recommendations are being considered by the Government. I should have hoped that the Conservatives welcomed that study and the progressive way in which we are dealing with the issue.

Paramilitary Violence

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the current level of paramilitary violence. [149949]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I constantly review the level of paramilitary violence in consultation with the Chief Constable and my security advisers.

Mr. Robertson: According to the detailed written answer that the Minister provided me with on 26 February, since the signing of the Good Friday agreement there have been 65 murders, 828 bombings, 836 shootings and 396 assaults—a total of slightly more than 2,000 paramilitary crimes. How many of those can be attributed to the main paramilitary groups, which are supposed to be on ceasefire?

Dr. Reid: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I make it plain that one killing, one murder or one bombing is one too many. None of us will, or should, be satisfied until Northern Ireland is free of the use of the gun and the bomb. On the hon. Gentleman's question, shootings, assaults and acts of intimidation are continuing to take place and I utterly condemn them. They are completely incompatible with the society that we are attempting to build in Northern Ireland.
To update the hon. Gentleman's figure, 54 such attacks have taken place so far this year. We estimate that 33 were carried out by loyalist gunmen and 21 by republican gunmen. Whatever organisation those people represent, they are at odds not only with the rule of law that operates in every decent society, but with the


overwhelming desire of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland to create a society that is free from violence.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent start that he has made in Northern Ireland, and I wish him well in the very difficult job that he has to do. May I draw his attention to the financial appeal launched by victims and bereaved families in Omagh in pursuit of the civil action that they seek to take against the perpetrators of the bombing in 1998? I will not ask him to commit himself to that course of action, but will he take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's good will towards the Omagh support group and the bereaved families? Will he reaffirm also the Government's determination to do everything in their power to bring the perpetrators of that atrocity to justice at the earliest possible time?

Dr. Reid: Yes. I very much appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend is here today. I want to put on record my appreciation and that of the Government for all his work in Northern Ireland. On the specific issue that he raised, I know that shortly after leaving office, he literally put his money where his mouth had been—his pocket had previously been sealed because he was a member of the Cabinet. I very much agree with the sentiments that he expressed, and we are examining ways in which we can further assist and support the victims of that terrible tragedy.
As someone who has only recently come to a position of any authority in Northern Ireland, I think, like others outside the circle of those who are most intimately involved, that one of the most terrible and lasting memories of my time in Parliament was seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), in his first week as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, visiting the scene of that devastating tragedy. I say to all the parties in Northern Ireland that our aim is precisely to ensure that the possibility of further such tragic events is removed from Northern Ireland once and for all. The prize before us is so great and the consequences of failure are so awful that we must all go the extra mile to make sure that the peace process is carried forward.

Mr. Stephen Day: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and wish him every success in what I know will be his sincere efforts. All hon. Members will agree with his sentiments and the hopes that he has expressed for Northern Ireland's future. Sadly, however, those who carry out punishment beatings, whichever side or community they come from, inflict terrible violence on the innocent people of Northern Ireland, and until they decommission weapons and give up violence and the threat of violence, or suffer sanctions for failing to fulfil their agreements within the peace process, that violence will continue.

Dr. Reid: I would not even grace those incidents with the term "punishment beatings", which the hon. Gentleman used, because that implies some legitimacy; they are paramilitary attacks and as such they have no legitimacy whatsoever. I agree that as long as there are threats or the use of violence, whether by individuals or organisations, the price of continuing the renewal of democratic structures in Northern Ireland will be eternal

vigilance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be vigilant, and I will act on the advice of the Chief Constable and my security advisers.
The hon. Gentleman will accept that if we are to deprive these particular fish of the water in which they seek to swim, the measures being taken as part of the democratisation of Northern Ireland, including the incorporation of human rights, the setting up of the devolved Assembly and the renewal of Northern Ireland's police service, are important parallel steps. They are being put in place. There is no legitimacy for any group or individual from any side in any community that resorts to violence.

Mr. John Hume: I join other Members in expressing deep gratitude to the new Secretary of State for the detailed attention that he is already giving to all aspects of our serious problems in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, given the current level of paramilitary violence, there are those engaged in it whose objective is to ensure that there is an absence of law and order on the streets of Northern Ireland, so that they can develop even further their mafia trade, especially in drugs? Every effort must be made to de a with such people because of the damage that they are doing to young people in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There are those who seek under the flag of some higher cause to promote their own profit, not only by using violence to produce the product but in the product itself, be it drugs, terrorism or protection rackets. This inflicts even more violence and tragedy on families in Northern Ireland. These people will be defeated because we shall maintain a security level that is commensurate with the threat, and because we shall riot be deflected from renewing institutions, democracy and the security apparatus—the police service in Northem Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman has been involved in these matters for about 32 years. He knows more than anyone else that there is nothing inevit able about the progress of the peace process. All of us on all sides must bend our will towards it. It will involve con promise and the moral courage that has previously been shown; it must be continued.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and wish him every success. I join the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in encouraging those who have any knowledge of the ghastly atrocity in Omagh to lend their support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that since that atrocity, when we wt re brought back to put emergency legislation in place to deal with the people involved, no one has been prosecuted under that legislation?

Dr. Reid: I can confirm that. I can confirm also that that is a source of deep regret to me, to everyone in the House and to anyone who witnessed the terrible and tragic events in Omagh. Unlike those who deployed their bombs and guns on that occasion, the bottom line is that we will apply the rule of law. We have to depend on that standard of law and that standard of evidence.
I am convinced than everything possible is being done in regard to Omagh. I take the point that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by my right


hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I appeal to anyone of any tradition on either side of the border who has any information about the terrible act of violence in Omagh, which has left so many people bereft and distraught, to make it available to the appropriate authorities.

Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that each and every death at the hands of paramilitaries is to be condemned? Will he reflect that since 1994 and the Major ceasefire, literally hundreds of people have been walking about northern Ireland who would otherwise have died? Given the comments of Brian Keenan over the weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that the paramilitaries are completely out of step with current thinking and with what is going on in the peace process on the part of all major parties in Northern Ireland, and are entirely irrelevant to the process?

Dr. Reid: I very much agree with that. I, too, shall not be distracted by Brian Keenan's remarks. When faced with the enormity of the problems and the burden of history that is upon those who would seek to change the situation in Northern Ireland, we sometimes underestimate just how much is l being achieved. It is encouraging sometimes to look bad, over the past decade and to recognise that the establishment of the institutions, the participation of all sides of the community in the devolved Executive and the Assembly in Northern Ireland, the introduction of human rights legislation, the start on a new policing service, and the hundreds and thousands of people who are working together across the communities, are all a tribute to the politicians on both sides in Northern Ireland who have had the moral courage to take hard but necessary decisions to create a new Northern Ireland. They should take credit for that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the response of the Secretary of State. Does he share the concern, especially after another murder last evening, that those involved in paramilitary violence and acts of terrorism may be encouraged by the fact that some strands of the Belfast agreement have not been implemented? For example, I understand that after the Cavehill post office raid at Christmas, several people were app apprehended, but nothing has happened since, and one of those had been involved in the Wright murder. Is the Secretary of State concerned about a sense of demoralisation among members of the police service as they seek to carry out the tasks assigned to them, but find their efforts under mined?

Dr. Reid: I pay tribute to everyone in the RUC, from the Chief Constable downwards, for the operations that they have been carrying out in extremely difficult circumstances, both politically and as regards the security environment. I very much regret and condemn the murder that took place last night in Lurgan. I do not have full details of the possible motive for that, but we should not underestimate the activity of the RUC. In Larne, for instance, there have been more than 300 additional patrols, and they have been supported by mobile support

units. Similarly, in Belfast, there have been a number of successes recently, not least the discovery of the pipe-bomb factory; so I have no hesitation in adding my commendations for the efforts of the Chief Constable and those in the RUC who have to combat the continuing violence perpetrated by individuals and dissident groups.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and wish him well in achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one way of combating paramilitary violence is to ensure that there is positive recruiting to the RUC? Will he, like me, welcome the Chief Constable's decision to recruit last week? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that those who have influence in the minority community are sufficiently encouraging first-class Catholic recruits to come forward?

Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. There are various levels at which we must combat the terrorist and the threat of gunmen, from whatever quarter they come. We must try to ensure that there is as little support as possible for groups such as the Real IRA. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter with the President of the United States in recent days. Also, we must ensure that we have a police force in Northern Ireland that is effective, as well as representative of and acceptable to both communities.
In the past few days, we have gone ahead with advertising, with a view to recruitment for the police service on a 50:50 basis. I commend the Chief Constable for that, and I am delighted that there has been such an overwhelming response—some 4,000 replies already. I am sure that that is indicative of a recognition in the whole community that we mean business. I urge all the parties to the Good Friday agreement to do what they said they would do. For decades, people have asked for a new police force, representative of the whole community. I urge all parties now, despite their difficulties, to come in and support us on that.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful for that positive response and I endorse everything that the Secretary of State has just said. May I now press him further on how we also combat paramilitary violence? One aspect of the Belfast agreement has not been implemented at all. There has been absolutely no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by any of the so-called paramilitary groups which signed up to the agreement. Not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in. What further pressure can the right hon. Gentleman put on the paramilitaries so that they fulfil their obligations? If they do not do so, the whole process which we all support will be put at dire risk.

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that, for a considerable number of weeks, including when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was Secretary of State, we have been involved in discussions which are aimed directly at that end. Of course, decommissioning cannot be seen on its own, because we also have the issues of normalisation, policing and the institutions, but it is a fundamental element of the Good Friday agreement, and all the parties to that must show that they are using all their influence to achieve the decommissioning of which he speaks. Of course, we


welcome the confidence-building measures that were taken—the inspection of the two dumps—but we need to go further on that, and that is part and parcel of what we are trying to do at present.
I conclude by responding to one of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He wished me well in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. I cannot bring peace to Northern Ireland. For some 800 years, people in my position have crossed the water trying to bring peace. The people who will bring peace to Northern Ireland are represented in the parties here and in the communities they represent. We can only be a vehicle. But of one thing I am sure, and that is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland want that peace and demand that their representatives achieve it on their behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
I am sure that the House will join me in stating our profound distress at the terrible tragedy at Great Heck earlier this morning. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and relatives of those who died or were injured. The accident appears to have happened when a Land Rover and trailer slid off the M62 and went down on to the line, but it is simply too early to be certain. The emergency services are at the scene. Once again, I pay fulsome tribute to the work that they are doing. The Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement to the House later tonight following his return from the scene of the accident.

Mr. Leigh: The House will appreciate the demands placed on the Prime Minister and his colleagues by this latest rail tragedy coming on top of the grave crisis in the countryside. On the latter point, will the Prime Minister please respond positively to the voluntary postponement of the countryside march by saying today that he will listen to the voice of the hundreds of thousands who would have taken part in that march on farm incomes, compensation, access, rural infrastructure and hunting, in a manner which is both understanding and tolerant of their point of view?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman puts his point very reasonably. I can well understand the deep feelings of anxiety—indeed, fear—in our farming community today. Coming on top of the problems of BSE and the collapse in some world commodity prices for farm produce, foot and mouth disease is a bitter and unfair blow to the farmers. We will do all that we can to help, first by eradicating the disease as swiftly as possible—

that must be our No. 1 priority—and, secondly, by working with the industry, and, through measures such as agrimonetary compensation, helping the industry to get back on its feet again. Anything that we can reasonably do we will.
I pay tribute to tilt, farmers and their representatives in the National Farmer: Union, to the wider industry and to the whole country for the way in which they have rallied round at this very difficult time. As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. John Grogan: As well as expressing our hopes for the speedy recovery of the many who were injured in this morning's terrible rail accident and who are currently being treated in six hospitals throughout Yorkshire, will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the role of the villagers in Great Heck? They were among the first on the scene in the murk and gloom of the early morning, providing what assistance they could. Will he also give an assurance that there will be the fullest possible inquiry into the circumstances of this terrible accident?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance. Of course there must be the fullest possible inquiry into how the accident occurred. As I said, it is too early yet to be absolutely certain, but the cause appears to be the Land Rover and trailer slipping off the motorway and down on to the track. The villagers in my hon. Friend's constituency have behaved in an extraordinary, neighbourly and exemplary way. It is remarkable how local communities in Britain pull together in times of crisis such as this and do their very best for other people.

Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate myself completely with the Prime Minister's words? The tragic accident this morning unites the nation once again in deep sorrow, especially in North yorkshire and the constituency of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), as well as my own constituency. Our thoughts go out to those who have been injured and to the families of those who have been killed. We will, of course, await the Deputy Prime Minister's statement this evening but for the moment may I express the Opposition's support for what the Prime Minister has said about a full investigation, and our anxiety that its results will be made known as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I do not really have anything more to add. Of course we must have the fullest possible inquiry and, yes, as soon as we have the results of that inquiry, we will make sure that the House is properly informed.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has already referred to other sombre news this week. Everyone will understand if the usual robustness of our exchanges is somewhat suspended today, because this week our sympathies are also with the rural communities plunged into crisis by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. As this comes on top of the serious losses already endured, it is devastating for many farmers and in some cases could be the final blow. The Opposition support all the measures that the Government have taken to tackle the disease. Given the reports coming to hon. Members today about the


continuing use of footpaths in livestock areas and the difficulties in controlling public access to farm roads, will the Government be ready to take further action to restrict access to areas that are at risk if that proves necessary?

The Prime Minister: Of course, if it proves necessary, we will be prepared to take whatever measures are available to us. We will take whatever additional action is necessary to ensure that we put every possible limit on the spread of the disease. As a result of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, controls are available. If they need to be strengthened, we will certainly examine that.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister will also know that large supplies of disinfectant are crucial to the attempt to prevent the further spread of the disease. Many farmers are telling us that they cannot obtain, such supplies. Will he undertake to consider that matter with the Minister of Agriculture and do everything that he can to ensure that production of the necessary materials is at the highest level possible across the country and that adequate supplies are getting through to abattoirs and farms?

The Prime Minister: On that point, which is obviously very important, my understanding; is that sufficient disinfectant is being produced, but that it is not always getting to the places that need it. We are considering what measures we can take to ensure that it gets to them and to provide facilities and a means of communicating with farmers, abattoirs and other people w ho will need supplies of the disinfectant. We are working on that very hard indeed, both within my right hon. Friend's Department and elsewhere with the industry. I believe that we should be able to sort out the remaining problems within the next few days.

Mr. Hague: I should like to ask two further questions, if I may. The Prime Minister will be aware that although the compensation package is very welcome, it does not include many farmers affected by the ban on livestock movement, such as pig farmers, who might not be eligible for any of the aid so far announced and may soon face catastrophic animal welfare problems. The proposal to allow the limited movement of healthy animals will obviously help, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept in principle that further targeted help might be necessary for farmers who are suffering unrecoverable losses as a result of the ban?

The Prime Minister: Of course we keep under review the proposals in relation to compensation. I should perhaps explain to the House that they fit into two parts at the present time. First, there is the statutory compensation for slaughtered animals, which will apply to pig farmers and, indeed, to any farmers who are affected. Secondly, there is the agrimonetary compensation that has now been drawn down. That is around £150 million. It does not apply to pig farmers, but does apply to other affected farms. That money will h the to reimbursed by up to about 80 per cent. from the British taxpayer, but we have done that and that money will be available.
In addition, I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture) Lure has extended the restructuring scheme for pig farmer as well. As a result of the ability for there to be licensed slaughter, which will

come into effect at the end of this week, some of those losses, we hope, will be minimised, but of course we keep the position under constant review.

Mr. Hague: Finally, the Prime Minister will agree that the response to the crisis has been characterised by calmness and restraint both in the farming communities and among the wider public. Nowhere has that been more evident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has observed, than in this week's decision by the Countryside Alliance, despite its deeply held views, to suspend its planned 18 March rally for liberty and livelihood.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever the views across all parties on the merits of the issue, it would be a proper recognition of the Countryside Alliance's sense of responsibility at least to delay the introduction of the Hunting Bill to the House of Lords until those who want to protest about it are free to do so?

The Prime Minister: The Bill will go through its normal stages and I repeat once again that there is a free vote on the issue on both sides of the House of Commons. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of those people with concerns about the countryside that such concerns are not surprising with farming in the position that it is today, but it is important to recognise what we can do to help. The truth is that farming in this country has suffered many serious blows in the past few years, going back, I may say, beyond the time at which we came to office, but not limited to that at all.
The problems of BSE have obviously been huge for farmers, and a strong pound has been a particular difficulty. There has been a collapse in certain world commodity prices for the goods that they produce. To have foot and mouth disease come on top of that means that the situation is appalling. For that reason, over the past few years, and for the first time, we have been drawing down that agrimonetary compensation—we have drawn down more than £600 million worth of it.
Fortunately, because the public finances are in a healthy state, we are able to pay compensation. We do not begrudge that at all, or the support that we are giving to the farming industry. I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall carry on working with the farming industry and its representatives to give them every possibility of a secure future and better times than they have enjoyed over the past few years. However, I make this point as well: in so doing, it is very important to recognise that farmers need our support not just as the people who produce the food that we eat, but as custodians of the countryside. I recognise that role absolutely and I am happy to pay tribute to it.

Ms Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that effective policing must never be put at risk by political correctness? Does he also agree that effective policing must never be put at risk by biased or prejudiced targeting of particular groups, black or white? Is he aware that in Tower Hamlets, since the introduction of the Macpherson recommendations, the number of those who are stopped and searched and then arrested has increased over the past year by 40 per cent., which represents a victory for the police in their fight against crime?
Will the Prime Minister therefore congratulate Tower Hamlets police on their efforts and urge every Member of the House who genuinely values effective policing as well as the need to safeguard our civil liberties to support the Macpherson recommendations and stop playing politics with race?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I met the officers in charge of policing in her area when I was in her constituency a few weeks ago, and I certainly pay tribute to the work that they have done because they have shown that it is perfectly possible to make sure that policing takes no account of the race or background of a particular individual while still enforcing the law. Indeed, that is the only way properly to police a local community. The fact that there has been a 40 per cent. increase in the number of people arrested following stop and search is a very good sign indeed.
My hon. Friend will also know that, as I said to members of her local community when I was there, I hope that those people who see such changes come about now feel empowered to join our police force and be part of policing their local communities.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the expressions of sympathy and condolence enunciated by both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party in connection with today's terrible train catastrophe.
May I return to an issue that was discussed earlier, and make it clear that the Liberal Democrats strongly support the swift action that the Government have taken over the freezing of the movement of animals within the country? May I also ask a couple of specific questions? How and when does the Prime Minister intend to reintroduce meat supplies from British farmers safely into the domestic food chain, and when will such a scheme be up and running?

The Prime Minister: Details of a scheme for licensed slaughter of animals that will be taken straight from the farms to slaughter will be announced on Friday. The scheme will both significantly improve the situation relating to food supply and give hope to farmers who cannot currently move their animals at all.

Mr. Kennedy: An awful lot of people in the country as a whole, but particularly in the agricultural community, would like details sooner rather than later if that is at all possible. Is the Prime Minister in a position at least to clarify whether he or his Ministers are engaging in discussions with the supermarkets, and ensuring that they in turn engage in discussions with local farmers and suppliers as a whole to make certain that things are back on track as soon as possible?
People out there really care about what is happening. They do not feel that they have the information they need, and this is a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to provide it.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific query is yes, of course we have been in touch with the supermarkets. We are also engaging in detailed discussion with farmers and the wider industry.
It is not that we are being coy about announcing the details; it will take us until Friday to put those details together in a way that is worked out and agreed with the industry. It is perfectly right for us not to make an announcement until we are sure of all the details; that will give the greatest confidence not just to the consumer, but to the farming industry. Of course it has taken some time to do this, but I think it is worth taking the time to ensure that it is done properly.
From Friday onwards, we shall be able to license the slaughter of animals. That will allow us to replenish the food chain with British beef, which, as we know, is the safest and best in the world because of the controls we introduced following the BSE problems in our farming industry. More important, it will allow us to do that in a way that will give maximum confidence to farmers themselves.

Mr. Geraint Davies: May I ask a question about the economy? In Croydon, 4,877 people who were unemployed id in 1997 now have jobs, saving the taxpayer £58 million which can be spent on services or tax reductions. Doe that not clearly illustrate that the party that generates more jobs is the party that can deliver more investment in ervices and lower taxes? The history of the Opposition shows that they will never be able to deliver that.

The Prime Minister: It is self-evident that the more stable the economy the better things are for people's mortgages, living standards and jobs. I am pleased about the number of jobs that have been created. I also think it important for us to maintain programmes such as the new deal, which has help id to cut levels of endemic long-term unemployment, thus reducing the number of benefit claims and allowing us to spend the money on things that people want it to be spent on.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anomaly whereby nurses in my constituency and other high-cost areas of west Kent will not qualify for the new cost-of-living supplement for London and the south-east, which extends as far as Portsmouth and Swindon? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the demoralismg and distorting effect of that? People just a few miles apart are doing the same public service jobs for different rates of pay. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the position again?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that if we want to attract people into nursing, teaching and the police in areas where recruitment is particularly difficult because of the buoyancy of the local economy, differential rates of pay will be an inevitable consequence. I should have thought that people like the hon. Gentleman would rather favour a move to a system involving greater pay differentials. I can toll him, however, that we keep the areas covered by the supplement under review. I can also tell him that, irrespective of which part of the country people are in, we as a Government have implemented the pay review board's recommendations in full.
We have also significantly increased the pay of many nurses over the past few years—some pay has increased by as much as 25 per cent. I understand that it is always possible to do more, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to take into account what we have done for all nurses, not simply those affected by the new allowance.

Mr. John Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year is the 50th anniversary of the deployment of British service men in the Suez canal zone and that, during that occupation, 60 were killed and 600 wounded by hostile fire? Does he recognise that the Government can be proud of their record in reviewing military matters, whereas previous Governments have ignored long-standing injustices? Will he therefore use his office to ensure that, this year, the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations finally gets the chance to consider the case for awarding the general service medal to our troops who served in the Suez from 1951–54?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has been raising that issue for some considerable time and I pay tribute to him for that. The recognition for those personnel present in the Suez canal zone was considered at the time and, as he will know, it has been raised on a number of occasions since. I know that the official committee that looks at those matters is aware of that case. I am sure—I will make sure myself—that it will consider very carefully any further representations, including the ones that he has just made.

Mr. David Trimble: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall that seeks to show all that is good and positive with regard to Northern Ireland. I thank him for agreeing to visit it, but is he aware of the fact that, in Northern Ireland over the past decade, our economy has grown at twice the UK average, that we are experiencing record levels of employment and that the bulk of that employment has been created by small businesses, particularly local small businesses? Will the Prime Minister therefore ensure that, in their fiscal policies, his Government do not add to the burdens that are borne by those local businesses?
May I also remind the Prime Minister that in Northern Ireland farm incomes have fallen mare steeply than in any other part of the United Kingdom? In dealing with that part of our economy, which is in serious difficulties, can he bear that in mind, too?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point about the farming industry, of course I understand that farmers' incomes have suffered very considerably in Northern Ireland. They will be subject to the announcements that we made yesterday.
In respect of small businesses, the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. It is one of the reasons that we cut the small business corporation tax and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues to keep under review fiscal measures that can assist small businesses.
In respect to the Northern Ireland economy, I pay tribute to people such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have also played a part. Were it not for the peace process of the past few years, I do not believe that the

Northern Ireland economy would be as buoyant as it is today. Therefore, the courage shown by people such as him has also been a very large part of the resurgence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend give us the latest figures on the take-up rate of the working families tax credit? Has he seen reports suggesting that the number of people who are eligible for that tax credit has dropped?

The Prime Minister: I think that 1.1 million families have taken up the working families tax credit, some 300,000 more than took up the old family credit. It has meant lifting the incomes of many families up and down the country out of poverty and it is a huge work incentive as well.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Last year, a paedophile used a teenage internet chat room to approach a 12-year-old girl in my constituency. He groomed her online to entice her to an offline meeting for sexual purposes. As many as one in five children who use internet chat rooms are approached by paedophiles in that way. Will the Prime Minister take steps to review the law to ensure that such online grooming is a criminal offence and bring pressure to bear on internet service providers, so that they offer parents chat-free services and all our children can be protected?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am informed by the Home Secretary that earlier today he had a meeting on that very subject. We are actively considering doing what the hon. Gentleman has just suggested. Perhaps when our deliberations have finished I can contact him and tell him the result of that.

Gillian Merron: On the crucial issue of police numbers, is my right hon. Friend aware that because of a combination of additional Government funding and innovative recruitment strategies, Lincolnshire police have confirmed to me that they will be on course next month to achieve the county's highest ever officer strength? Will he confirm that the Government will commit themselves to continue police funding to support Lincolnshire police?

The Prime Minister: I am obviously very pleased to hear that news, and the fact that Lincolnshire police will have the highest ever number of police is obviously very good for local people and for fighting crime in the area.
I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to realise that it is important not only to provide police with additional money for one year, but to provide it year on year on year as sustained investment. That is why it is so important that we are able to put additional money into schools, hospitals and police, but on the basis of a stable economy in which we are keeping inflation low, interest rates low and the public finances healthy.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Prime Minister that I have received more than 1,000 letters from my constituents—parents, teachers and governors—complaining about the unfair funding settlement for schools in the county, and that the


settlement has become worse under this Government? May I also point out to him that every child in every school in his constituency receives £200 more, and that every child in every school in a Birmingham constituency receives £500 more, than every child in my constituency and in Worcestershire? Those sums add hundreds of thousands of pounds to a school's budget. Finally, may I also ask that rather than giving me the pat answers that misrepresent the Conservative party's point of view on education, he treat the question seriously and make urgent representations to the Deputy Prime Minister, so that education, education, education really means something for children in Worcestershire?

The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Lady knows, as the Green Paper on local government makes clear, that we are reviewing the way in which the standard spending assessment works. She will also be aware—given that for 18 years Conservative Members had the opportunity to do something about it but never did—that people treat with, let us say, a little scepticism claims by people such as her who have been opposed to the finance system.
As for the general issue of education funding, the Government are—this is a fact—putting record investment into education. I also suspect that, in the hon. Lady's own constituency, schools have had capital funding under the new deal that they would never have had under the previous Government. As she and the Conservative party are committed to scrapping the new deal, those schools would also not receive that funding in the future.
I hope that that was not a pat answer. However, I believe it is important that, when we debate education, we remember that, in their last three years in office, the previous Government cut funding per pupil by £30, whereas we have increased it by more than £300.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Next Monday, the Minister for School Standards will open the new Chetwynd Road school, in Broxtowe, which has been waiting in temporary first world war huts since 1915—under 22 Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments. Does the Prime Minister welcome the genuine pleasure that people in Broxtowe feel about the additional education funding? Further to the previous exchange, will he also accelerate the review of the funding formula, so that in future each child in Britain has a decent chance of education that does not depend on their postcode?

The Prime Minister: As has been said, later this year we shall set out our decisions in a White Paper. However, I tell my hon. Friend that of course we understand the concerns that have been expressed. I think he also again makes the point that it is only that additional investment—

I think there has been £14 million in Nottinghamshire alone—that has allowed us to make that commitment to Britain's schools. The truth is that we have under-invested in our public services for a very long time. It will take time to put that right, but the money is coming in. The most important thing, however, is that investing on the back of a stable economy means that the money can be sustained year on year.

Mr. Edward Gamnier: May I raise with the Prime Minister a matter of practical concern to sheep farmers in my constituency? The lambing season will shortly be upon us, and there is a great need for my farmers to be able to bring their ewes back inside, to protect them from the severe weather and from fox and badger predation. My farmers understand, as I do, the need for the restrictions on the movement of livestock, but the public highway cuts across some farms' land and thus prevents ewes from being brought inside. Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Minister of Agriculture to see if he can find a sensible way to deal with this welfare and economic problem?

The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly reasonable point. There is a serious problem here. Obviously, the first task of the Government and all the authorities must be to eradicate the disease, but we understand the particular problem that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises in relation to sheep farmers. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that the problem is being considered, as is the specific suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. I do not know when we can give him some assurance on the matter, but we will do so as soon as we can.

Ms Sandra Osborne: Given the substantial improvement that the Government have made in employment conditions, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of the Cathelco group? That firm has manipulated. I the system to its own advantage, while depriving 16 former employees at the Ailsa-Troon shipyard in my constituency of their redundancy rights. Will he accept that there are flaws in the system when such a thing can happen? Will he ask Ministers to examine the company, with a view to reviewing its trading licence and to ensuring that it does not receive publicly funded contracts?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about this matter, about which she has written to me. I recognise the strength of feeling that exists about what lit happened to the 16 employees at the yard. I know that many people have expressed concern at their treatment. If she will allow me, I will ask a Minister at the Scotland Office to get back to her with a detailed response on the point that she has raised.

Point of Order

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that we got to only Question 2 in Northern Ireland Question Time because the questions, and Ministers' answers, were so longwinded. Can you do anything to ensure that your admonition to the House some weeks ago—that questions and answers should be short—is obeyed, especially by Front-Bench Members? Can you ensure also that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not ask repeat questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am conscious that we reached only Question 2 in Northern Ireland questions, and I will try to speed up the process next time.

Siting of Telecommunications Masts

Ms Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the siting and development of telecommunications masts.
I congratulate the Government on their establishment of an independent expert group chaired by Sir William Stewart to look into aspects of the problem of telecommunication masts, and I welcome too the subsequent publication of the Stewart report in May last year. However, serious concerns about the siting of mobile phone masts have been raised in the Chamber on several occasions since then, usually as a direct response to concerns raised by worried constituents.
My Stourbridge constituents are extremely concerned about proposals made by Vodafone to site a new telephone mast near their homes and a short distance from a school and a nursery. Hundreds of my constituents have successfully petitioned Dudley council and, with my support, have vigorously opposed the company's application to build the mast. Dudley council, rightly in my view, turned the application down twice, but its decision was overturned on appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In his appeal decision, the inspector referred to the Stewart report, concluding that exposure to radio frequency radiation below guideline levels did not cause adverse health effects in the general population. Paragraph 1.18 states:
There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below guidelines.
Paragraph 1.19 states:
We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to radio frequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in the knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
Again, paragraph 6.44 says:
the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence.
These points are, in my view, sufficient to raise serious and legitimate health concerns and they have been interpreted as such by an appeals inspector appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The inspector dismissed an appeal by Orange against the decision of the London borough of Harrow to refuse to grant approval for a mobile telecommunications mast. Orange, like Vodafone in my constituency of Stourbridge, had appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is my understanding that the appeal decision in Harrow is the first of its kind to include health considerations as reasons for dismissal of an appeal.
Point 6 of the appeal decision cites guidance in the ministerial letter of 29 June 2000. It says that the Government's response to the Stewart report should be "accorded considerable weight". Point 7 of the appeal decision states that the independent expert group on mobile phones came to the view that there could be indirect adverse effects on well-being in some cases. I think that I have shown that the Stewart report has had very mixed outcomes on appeal decisions under section 78 of the 1990 Act.
People who live near the proposed Vodafone mast site in my constituency were devastated to learn that their views and those of their democratically elected councillors and Member of Parliament could be thrown out by an appeals inspector. I have knocked on the doors of many of the houses near the proposed site. They are the homes of families with young children. Concerned parents have said to me that they do not want risks taken with their children's health. I agree with them wholeheartedly.
Right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly criticised the lack of local consultation on mobile phone masts. In Stourbridge, the site is 150 m from a school and a day nursery. Yesterday, Vodafone faxed my office to say that it is organising radio frequency calculations and that, in line with the recommendation of the independent expert group, if the maximum radio wave intensity should fall on a school or school grounds, it will consult the school. Vodafone has waited a very long time to make such measurements. I suggest that it is only now, with the prospect of sustained and substantial bad publicity, that such moves are being made. The vast majority of parents of pupils in the school and the nursery do not want that mast sited near their children.
My constituents are not alone. Since my decision to present a Bill to the House on this issue, many colleagues have contacted me and offered support. In addition, I have received representations from across Britain. It is no exaggeration to say that thousands and thousands of people want much stronger legislation regarding mobile phone masts. I know of opposition to them in areas including Luton, Brighton, Forest of Dean, Conwy, Dartford, Hendon, Harrow and many more. Overwhelmingly, people want to know that they will be fully consulted, that their views will be listened to and that local decisions will be valued. They do not want local decisions that are supported by their democratically elected representatives to be overturned.
When the Minister for Public Health, responded to the recent debate on the Phillips inquiry into BSE, she acknowledged that the report stated that the other casualty of the BSE story had been the destruction of the credibility of pronouncements. My hon. Friend said:
That is extremely serious; it is about not only BSE, but trust in Government across the board and in pronouncements on health and safety."—[0fficial Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 554]
She then specifically mentioned mobile phones. Public opinion about the possible health risks of mobile phones is such that there is urgent need for changes to planning legislation.
I have shown today that the Stewart report was used to dismiss an appeal on health grounds in one part of the country, but that such grounds were not used in my Stourbridge constituency. I have demonstrated that consultation is being driven by the fear of adverse publicity rather than by a genuine commitment to community consultation. I have shown that public opinion is overwhelmingly fearful for children's health; rightly so. In the view of expert opinion, the case for the safety of mobile phone masts in regard to children's health is at best unproven.
I have made the cilse for an urgent change in legislation to allow for planning controls on mobile phone masts. I make that case on behalf of thousands of parents across Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was hoping to be able to support an Bill. I, too, have experience of local parents who are concerned about the siting of masts near schools and hospinds. I am also aware of aesthetic arguments against mobile phone masts. Indeed, the comments of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) largely echo Conservative policy.
The Conservative party calls specifically for the refusal of permission for all new masts on land owned or occupied by councils. School governors are being asked to adopt council policy. Schools are to be urged to ask the Radiocommunications Agency to check emissions from existing masts on school sites. Councils are to be asked to oppose applications for masts on highway land. I can understand those arguments on aesthetic grounds.
I oppose the Bill, however, because the hon. Lady tried to imply that there is a real health danger from mobile phone masts. She referred to extracts from the Stewart report, especially on localised heating of tissues. If the hon. Lady had read the report—as I have—she would see that those points apply specifically to the use of a mobile phone where the antenna is close to the cranium, when there is indeed a possibility of localised heating. In such cases, a health problem may arise—but no one is sure about that.
This morning, I found out from the BBC engineering information department that the Crystal Palace television transmitter gives out 1,000 kW of power—1 MW or 1 million watts—on its analogue television transmissions. In addition, for each of its digital services, it gives off a further 10,000 watts.
Those frequencies are similar to those used by Vodafone and Orange, to which the hon. Lady referred. However, neither at Crystal Palace, where such transmissions have been going on for more than 50 years, nor, indeed, at Sutton Coldfield, which serves my area and where similar power transmissions are used—I repeat that the power is mote than 1 million watts—is there any evidence of health problems. There is no clustering of leukaemia; nor are there other carcinogenic dysfunctions in the area.
Does the hon. Lady know the power of an average mobile phone mast? It is not 1 million watts or 1,000 watts—it is between 50 and 100 watts. That is the same power as an average light bulb. The hon. Lady has raised important and interesting points. Unfortunately, I fear that she may have increased the fears—unwitting, unrealised and perhaps unnecessary—of parents. For that reason only, I oppose the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Ms Margaret Moran, Mrs. Betty Williams, Barbara Follett, Mrs. Diana Organ, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Alan Simpson, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. David Lepper and Mr. Andrew Dismore.

SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS

Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to control the siting and development of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We are grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for his commitment to make a statement this evening on the terrible rail accident in Yorkshire. In view of the terrible events on the railway, we do not think it appropriate to debate the first Opposition motion on the Order Paper today on the Government's integrated transport policy.

Foot and Mouth

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House expresses concern about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, sympathy for farmers facing the loss of their livelihoods and for others working in the livestock sector, and appreciation of the work of those fighting to contain the spread of the disease; endorses the action of the Government to restrict the movement of livestock; welcomes its efforts to identify the source of the outbreak; urges, where necessary, a temporary suspension of rights of way across farmland; welcomes the Government's announcement that it will draw down the full amount of agri-monetary compensation available for livestock farmers; and calls on the Government to consider what other help can be given to the industry.
I welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to this debate, which has been brought forward by three and a half hours because of this morning's tragic accident. I should like to say that because the Minister has come here earlier than expected and given the pressure that he is under, we shall understand if he cannot be present throughout the debate.
A week ago, the public became aware that for the first time in 34 years, foot and mouth disease had been identified on the British mainland. Every day in the past seven days, the true horror that that news implied has been brought home. As more outbreaks have been confirmed, we have learned how quickly the disease can spread. As export markets shut down and internal livestock movements are banned, we see the vulnerability of a whole industry to a single disease. As race meetings and rugby fixtures have been cancelled, we have understood how widely the impact of the crisis is being felt. As the freedom of movement of people on foot and by car in rural areas is restricted, we realise how much of ordinary daily social, domestic and business life is coming to a halt. But above all, it is the personal tragedies of the farmers directly concerned that deserve our first sympathy.
More than for most people, the daily work of livestock farmers is a way of life. They are men and women who rise in the dark at 3.30 in the morning to milk their cows. They are men and women whose nights may be interrupted because of calving or lambing. Those men and women have a special relationship with the animals in their care, and when those animals are under threat of slaughter, those men and women face not just the loss of their livelihoods, but the destruction of the whole of their life's work. That is why, at the start of the motion, we invite the House to express sympathy for those fanners. At this time, they truly deserve our sympathy.
The past seven days have also shown the enormity of the task that the country now faces. The detailed process of checking animal movements to and from farms,


markets and slaughterhouses has placed a burden on vets, officials and other inspectors, which continues to grow. The need to understand how this dreadful disease came to our shores after a gap of more than a generation is paramount. Only by identifying the original source of the outbreak can we be sure of minimising the risk of a recurrence.
Every family in the land has been talking about the issue. There cannot be a single kitchen table anywhere in the United Kingdom around which worries have not been expressed about the disease, about its spread and about the possible consequences. That is why the Opposition have chosen to debate the subject today. It would be very odd indeed if Parliament did not address these concerns directly.
I hope that the Minister agrees that, even at a time of intense pressure on him and his Ministry, it remains an important part of his duty to keep Parliament informed and to be available on a regular basis to answer questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House—questions that have been put to them by their constituents and that they expect to have a chance to ask.

Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend will have observed the enormous interest and understandable support that he is receiving from Conservative Members. Given the claims of Labour Members that they also represent parts of the countryside, can he offer an explanation for their lack of representation in this debate?

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which will be apparent to anyone who can see the attendance in the Chamber.
Very unusually for an Opposition day motion, this motion has not been amended by the Government. We have chosen wording that is deliberately supportive not just of farmers and the industry, but of the main actions that the Government have announced in response to the crisis. Indeed, the Opposition have supported every one of the steps that the Government have taken so far. We have suggested more than once—and may continue to do so—that the Government should go further and should do more, but we have not criticised or resisted any of the Government's proposals to tackle the crisis. Because this is an emergency, we will give the Government our full backing in dealing with it. We genuinely wish the Minister and everyone else involved in trying to contain the spread of foot and mouth disease and to identify its source every possible success in their task.
I wish to comment on four subjects briefly. The first is compensation. I welcome unreservedly the announcement yesterday that the Government will draw down £156 million of agrimonetary compensation. That was the right decision, and I am glad that the Government have responded to many requests from Conservative Members and from the industry to take such a decision.
However, the Minister is fully aware that this agrimonetary compensation is designed specifically to compensate farmers for the weakness of the euro. Given the present state of the agriculture industry—an industry which is losing 400 jobs a week, which has lost 40,000 jobs in the past two years and in which the average income of farmers has fallen by three quarters in the past

four years—that agimonetary compensation was sorely needed regardless of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
We and others urged the Government to draw that money down befork the outbreak of foot and mouth disease was known about, so I urge the Minister to confirm this afternoon that, in principle, the Government accept that further targeted help may be needed for farmers and others suffering unrecoverable losses as a direct result of foot and mouth disease.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the question of loss, will my hon. Friend refer specifically to the plight of the livestock producers who are caught by the 30-month rule? They cannot market animals of more than 30 months at the full price because of that rule.

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. and learned Friend draws attention to a point to which I was coming. It is a relevant problem and a number of farmers will face it. The number will grow each week as movement restrictions remain.

Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend also consider the position of pig producers who, particularly in Norfolk and Suffolk, have already suffered the depredation of classical swine fever? Once again, they have to feed pigs that they cannot send to market. Those who have fattening units will again face empty stalls and no cashflow when they eventually manage to send pigs to market, and they have already faced the problems caused by the terrible swine fever.

Mr. Yeo: I am going to mention pig farmers, who are especially badly hit in both our constituencies. However, on the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), cattle are at the peak of their value when they approach 30 months, after which that value declines substantially and there is no prospect of it recovering. If the restrictions on movement, which have properly been imposed and to which we give our lull support, remain in force for any length of time, an increasing number of farmers will face severe difficulty.
It is important to mention cashflow. Nothing gnaws away at a business man's sense of well-being than cashflow problems. People who work in the public sector know that their salary cheque will go into their bank account come what may at the end of each month. They sometimes have no concept of the anxiety and sleepless nights that people stiffer if they do not know when they will next receive any money. Such circumstances can lead to the human tragedies that have too often scarred the industry in the past year or two.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Bearing in mind the cashflow difficulties that my hon. Friend mentions, will he also consider small abattoirs, which are greatly affected by the problem? The only abattoir left in Hampshire is in my constituency. It slaughtered its last animal two days ago. It has no income and substantial outgoings. Can he give my constituent and others any hope that they will receive help?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has raised that matter with me and is right to say that some small abattoirs will face acute difficulties. The Prime Minister recently seemed to


leave the door ajar to receiving further representations on behalf of people who may be affected in the way that my hon. Friend has described.
As for pig farmers, they have operated without subsidy because they are outside the regime that is covered by agrimonetary compensation. In the past 24 hours, the Minister referred to advancing the available money that was announced last April in the action plan for farming—a total of £65 million over three years. Although the intention was to spend some of that money in the current year, little or none has been spent for the purpose for which it was provided. In addition, the money is available only to people who are going to close down their business. That is not much comfort to people who are worried about the large amount of imported pigmeat that we have to buy. It would be comforting if there was something for pig fanners who want to remain in business.

Mr. David Drew: I wee with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Will he encompass farmers and producers who supply farmers' markets in his remarks? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rightly recommended that farmers' markets should not take place for the foreseeable future. Many people completely changed their method and chain of production for those markets and they are especially disadvantaged because they cannot shift any material. I hope that he will agree that that is a problem.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that. It is a problem. The growth of farmers' markets in the past couple of years, which both sides of the House welcome, has been brought to an abrupt halt, and that will cause acute problems. I am sure than, the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman.
Will the Minister consider the provision of private storage aid—for example, for sows, for which the export market has been removed? That world give pig farmers some hope that they might obtain a fair price for their animals.
My second point relates directly to compensation. It is possible that some animal movements may be permitted under licence. I appreciate that the Minister will want to be guided by the chief veterinary officer, and no Opposition Member would expect him to take a risk to cut corners. There is a difficult balance to strike between the obvious desirability of allowing as much movement as possible under licence to enable farmers to generate income again and the need to continue the containment measures that are in place. Clearly, however, the need for extra cash help for the industry will be directly reduced if some animal movement can be permitted. I understand from what was said in the House earlier that more information will be given on Friday. We look forward to hearing that. Can the Minister say this afternoon whether he expects the relaxations in the short term to be extensive?

Mr. Lembit Öpik: There must be an adequate supply of disinfectant throughout the country to enable even limited movement of Livestock. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a she nage of disinfectant in mid-Wales and elsewhere? Would he be interested to

hear, as I am, what provision the Government might make to supply adequate volumes of disinfectant to the farming community?

Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised exactly that point with the Prime Minister. That is an acute problem not only in the region of Wales from which the hon. Gentleman comes but in Devon and Cornwall and possibly elsewhere. Given that the availability of disinfectant is crucial to the containment measures, this is a key issue and that is why my right hon. Friend raised it.
The Minister will know that the lambing season is upon us, and in Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend pointed out that farmers may want to move their sheep but are unable to do so at present, even across a road that may divide one part of their farm from another. I understand that they are also unable to cross land belonging to a neighbouring farmer, even if the owner has given consent. Clearly, any relaxation that can safely be undertaken would be welcome, but I stress again that we understand that the Minister will want to make decisions on the basis of the advice that he is receiving from the chief vet.
My third point concerns the origin of the outbreak. The British mainland has enjoyed freedom from foot and mouth disease for 34 years, and it is terribly important that we should discover the origin of this outbreak. There are suspicions that it may have resulted from meat imports, whether legal or illegal. We have permitted imports from countries where foot and mouth outbreaks have recently occurred. I am advised that we currently allow imports from five countries where foot and mouth disease has occurred since the start of the year.
The Minister will know of the concern that I expressed in a parliamentary question on 8 January about the risks of imports from South Africa in the light of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in that country. I hope that in due course an analysis of how much meat has been imported from countries such as South Africa, which are known to have had foot and mouth disease in the very recent past, will be undertaken and published. The problem of illegal imports is also serious, and the Minister and I have debated it on many occasions. I will not go over that ground again, except to say that I believe that the public are also concerned about that, quite apart from any possible link with the outbreak of this disease.
I understand that more information is available about the swill used by the farmer in Northumberland, where the first outbreak occurred. I hope that the Minister will be able to share that information with the House and tell us whether he believes that the current regulations on feeding practices need to be reviewed in light of the advice that he is receiving. The public, as well as farmers, will want to know that reasonable precautions are being taken against the risk that foot and mouth disease could re-enter Britain after the present outbreak has been brought under control.
The reports today that antibodies have been found in sheep exported to Germany may—I stress the word "may"—mean that foot and mouth disease has been present here for longer than was previously thought. It underlines the need to understand precisely how the outbreak has occurred.
My fourth and last, brief point concerns access. I welcome the Government's prompt response to calls to close footpaths and rights of way across farmland. I was glad to see a press release from Kent county council today saying that it has already used the emergency powers available to close footpaths, bridleways and byways in that county.
I have heard from other county councils, including Suffolk, that they feel that they do not yet have the information that they need to put their powers into practice. I hope that the Minister will ask the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that all local authorities are notified immediately of their powers and of how they can be operated. I hope that he will back that up by urging them to introduce the powers at once.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that foot and mouth disease has already been diagnosed at a number of farms in Devon? Given the beauty of the area, many footpaths are still being used, including those over the Dartmoor national park and the heritage coastline. Thousands of ramblers from throughout Europe, including England, continue to walk these paths. Does my hon. Friend agree that Devon county council should be encouraged to close these footpaths and bridleways as a precaution? The foot and mouth farms are within 20 miles of the borders of my constituency. I suggested to the Minister on Monday that matting with disinfectant could be used at all the access points to the peninsula of south Devon, and so eradicate the possibility of foot and mouth disease coming to that peninsula.

Mr. Yeo: Devon is one of the most important livestock farming counties in Britain, and I am sure that the local people would want every possible precaution to be taken, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to minimise the risk of the disease spreading in the county. I believe that county councils would not be criticised if they decided to err on the side of caution in their response, given the powers that are now available to them.

Mr. John Burnett: I believe, but I am not yet certain—I shall check during the debate—that the appropriate orders have been made by Devon county council to close the footpaths.

Mr. Yeo: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information. [Interruption.] I am not sure what grounds Labour Members have for mirth.
This is a fast-moving situation. It was always likely that more cases would be confirmed after the first one last week. I dare say that we shall not know for a little longer whether the containment measures now in place are succeeding. The country will hope and pray that they do succeed. The Minister has an unenviable task, and we all hope that he succeeds in it. On behalf of the Opposition, I pledge that anything that we can do to assist him will be done. I warmly commend the motion to the House.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Before dealing with the motion, I want to say that in view of the tragic circumstances of

this morning's rail accident, the Opposition were right to change the business in the way that they have. I want to identify Ministers and officials in my Department with the expressions of sorrow, from both sides of the House, about the accident and the victims. I want particularly to add my personal expression of sorrow and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—friends and neighbours may well have been travelling on that train this morning.
I now come to the debate, and I thank the Opposition for their support for the Government's actions as expressed in their motion. There is nothing in the motion with which I disagree. This more bipartisan approach is the right way to respond to the serious situation that confronts us.
I know that the House will want to join me in expressing support and sympathy for all those who are caught up in the outbreak and the control measures that we have had to put in place. There have been a further six confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease today, taking the total to 24. The new cases include two in Powys, one in Herefordshire, one in Devon, one in Leicestershire and one in Lancashire. Yesterday, I confirmed new cases in Anglesey, Lancashire, Northampton and County Durham. Most of those new cases can be linked to previous cases. For the cases confirmed today, investigations into links with other cases are still continuing. All animals in confirmed cases and potentially dangerous contacts are slaughtered. So far, just over 15,000 animals have been slaughtered to control the disease—more than 3,000 cattle, about 11,000 sheep and almost 2,000 pigs.
I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the work of those who are in the front line in combating this disease outbreak. They include farmers and others in the livestock industry, the staff of the state veterinary service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food animal health offices and regional service centres, local authorities, the Meat Hygiene Service, private veterinarians and the police.
The Government's disease control policy remains as I reported to the Home on Monday. I shall summarise the sequence of events. Foot and mouth disease was first confirmed on Tuesday evening last week in pigs at an abattoir and in castle on a neighbouring farm near Brentwood in Essex. A further case was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland on Friday. Because that case was as in another region and because of the suspicion, subsequently confirmed, that it had been present for up to two weeks, the same day the whole of Great Britain was made a controlled area. All livestock movements and markets have been banned, as have country fairs, hunts and hare coursing held on farm land.
The Government have granted a special licence to allow the movement, under strict conditions, of fallen stock to a rendering plant, a knacker's yard, incinerators or hunt kennels. In cunjunction with the European Union, we have stopped the export of live animals and products to the EU and beyond so that we do not export the disease.

Mr. Dafydd Wigiey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken and give them my party's full support. What will b the position with ewes that need to be moved for lambing purposes, perhaps from one farm


to another owned by the same farmer? Given that there is a derogation for injured animals, is the right hon. Gentleman considering a derogation for ewes?

Mr. Brown: When I said yesterday that the situation was becoming increasingly complex, that was one of the issues that I had in mind. In an earlier exchange, a perfectly proper question was asked about the movement of ewes that are about to give birth to lambs from one farmholding to an adjacent farmholding, across an area where travel is not allowed. Indeed, travel is not allowed from one farmholding to another—but that is only one part of the issue.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are getting to the time of the year when breeding animals move from their winter grazing to the original farmholding where they are expected to give birth. Lambing is a period of intensive activity, which rather conflicts with our desire to impose rigid movement restrictions. I am very aware of the problem. I cannot announce a solution today, except to say that the imposition of movement restrictions to prevent the spread of the disease must be given first priority, but we will have urgent discussions with the industry to see how we should handle the situation in the current circumstances.
Although we have discovered foot and mouth disease in what are called fat lambs—animas that have been fattened for slaughter—we have not yet discovered it in the breeding flock. That is a significant fact for those who have to decide policy. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the industry and therefore understands the complexities. I can e explain the problem, but I am afraid that I am not in a position today to explain the comprehensive solution. All I can do is assert that priority is being given to the need to exterminate the disease.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank the Minister for giving way and also for his tireless work over the past week. He mentioned two cases in Powys. In fact, they are in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, and the evidence is that they originate from the Devon outbreak, which has been traced back to Northumberland. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the cases so far are linked to the original outbreak?

Mr. Brown: Because of the movements to and from Essex to neighbouring farms, and in view of the similar pattern where other outbreaks have been discovered, it does seem that every outbreak can be traced back to the Heddon-on-the-Wall farm, where the disease has been for longer than anywhere else in this country. That seems to be the position. I cannot be categorical, but it is a fair assumption.

Sir Michael Spicer: What is the position of graziers on common land? Having spoken to the Minister's office about this earlier, it seems that MAFF has no powers over graziers on common land. Is that true?

Mr. Brown: The position of common land is one of the other complexities with which we are grappling. While the animals are not moving, there is no danger of them spreading the disease beyond the common land, but the problem that the hon. Gentleman is getting at, of how

to sort flock by flock, is an intractable one. He describes it well, and if he has an idea for dealing with it immediately I shall be grateful to him. Perhaps the best way to proceed is exactly as we are doing and not allow animals to move, except for slaughter, and to bear down where the disease is found. That, as the hon. Gentleman knows, means bearing down on the cohorts with all the implications that that has for common land.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister referred to the market in lambs, and one particular problem that we have in Scotland, perhaps more than elsewhere, is the trade in overwintered lambs, which should be coming on to the market just now. If they do not come on to the market now, apart from the loss to the farmers the danger is that they will come on later in the year and so destroy the market for new lambs. Will he consider a scheme to take the lambs off the market so that the market later in the year is not destroyed?

Mr. Brown: We are giving consideration to such trade issues. The main thrust of our work is to bear down on the disease, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the trade issues. Perhaps now is the appropriate point for me to say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that his suggestion, in the context of the pig industry, concerning the use of private storage aid in some circumstances is a useful one, and I promise to keep it under review and at the forefront of my mind in my discussions with the Commission. I would require a derogation—it would be deemed a state aid if it were not in place throughout the Community.

Mr. John Bercow: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's necessarily cautious approach and the absolute premium that he attaches to safety. However, given that the issue of the possible grant of special licences has been raised by a number of sheep farmers in my constituency—and, I am sure, in those of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—can the Minister at least confirm that he is holding discussions with the national veterinary inspection service on the issue?

Mr. Brown: The veterinary authorities are involved in a range of discussions. I am not in a position to describe them all. In current circumstances, I rely on the advice being summarised by the chief veterinary officer and given to me in terms that assist me in making policy decisions. The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question is clearly right, but what I cannot do is describe to the House today how we will devise a solution that will deal with the vexed problem that he accurately describes. Clearly, if a measure is to be found, it will most certainly involve the strictest of controls, if animal movement is to be permitted at all. I ask everyone to bear at the forefront of their minds what I have just said about having discovered foot and mouth disease in the animals being fattened for the market but not yet having discovered it in the breeding flock. However, that does not mean that they are not susceptible to it; they most certainly are.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) with


regard to common land? That is a particular problem in the New Forest where cattle, a number of pigs and the ponies themselves range widely. That difficulty is compounded by open access, with a number of Forestry Commission car parks, camp sites, and a large number of horse boxes coming in, particularly at weekends. Can any measures be taken through MAFF's own verderer or through the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Brown: The regulatory authorities have the power to shut rights of way and, if they deem it necessary—even on a pretty wide interpretation of the precautionary principle—I am content that that should be a matter for them.
There is a series of different risks, by far the largest of which is that animals that are susceptible to the disease will transmit it to other animals. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the disease can be carried by vehicles, people, horses and other animals that are not directly susceptible, and it can, of course, be moved by travelling from farm to farm. Simple precautions can be taken that almost certainly reduce the risk of the transmission of an infective dose. Again, I appeal to everybody who enjoys the countryside to stay away from livestock and to take sensible precautions if they have to visit vulnerable premises.

Mr. Eric Pickles: What guidance is the Minister giving to local authorities on how many footpaths should be closed? I spoke a short time ago to the chief legal officer of Brentwood council, who is obviously very much involved in tackling the disease. Of course, hon. Members who represent neighbouring constituencies are also concerned about the matter. No advice has been received and there is a meeting tonight to decide what footpaths should be closed. Clearly, there is a difference between areas of agricultural land that have not been affected and other locations, but my area is right at the epicentre. What advice has been offered to Brentwood council on the number of footpaths that should be closed?

Mr. Brown: I deliberately left the issue to the discretion of local authorities, on the understanding that they would know best the local circumstances. It is for them to make an assessment of risk. I could divert veterinary resources into conducting a risk assessment of all the rights of way, but I have got them all bearing down on the disease itself and I had hoped that I could leave the matter of footpaths to local authorities. Incidentally, if they want advice from me, I suggest that they act on a precautionary basis. I think that most people would understand that that is a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I have been contacted by a company that collects milk from a number of farms in my constituency. It is anxious, as it has been trying to get in touch with the Ministry at Tolworth but so far has not managed to obtain a satisfactory response. It is concerned about spray suppression equipment, which must be fitted to heavy goods vehicles. The company is saying that the requirement to fit such equipment means that mud is being carried from one farm to another. It would be

possible to remove the equipment, but a derogation is needed for that. The company cannot get an answer either from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the Minister consider that as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Brown: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will get officials in my Department to consider the issue as a matter of urgency and provide him with a definitive answer. It seems to me that there are competing claims about whether such intervention is correct. I urge caution on the dairy industry. We are trying at least to keep the milk routes going, but there are obviously vulnerabilities in doing farm-to-farm visits. Everybody needs to exercise extreme caution to ensure that people and vehicles are not spreading the disease.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I know that the Minister is doing his best with regard to public access, but I am afraid that he will have to do a lot more to convince the public that they must be more strong minded in choosing where to go at weekends. He will be interested in the case of my constituent, Mr. Matthews, of Skyborry farm on the Welsh border. I suppose that the farm is situated about 90 miles from Leicester, but at the weekend Mr. Matthews encountered people from Leicester walking in what can only be called intensive sheep country. With the best will in the world, local authorities will be up against it to stop that sort of thing happening. The Minister should say more about the subject, so the public are properly aware of the risk.

Mr. Brown: We have devolved power to local authorities so that they can use it. If they do so, it has the force of law. If people will not obey the law, it is perfectly permissible to call the police. We have not devolved that power because we expect policemen to be standing at the beginning of every right of way. When somebody in authority, whether it is a farmer or a public official, says "Please do not use this footpath during the outbreak", any sensible person will just go away. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one or two people are quarrelling and asserting their rights, but in those circumstances I urge local authorities to take their names and addresses and prosecute them.

Sir Robert Smith: I appreciate the blanket ban that has been put in place, and I understand the nightmare of trying gently to unravel it—of knowing where to start—and the problems of competing pressures. However, will the Minister ensure than officials consider the animal welfare problem that a farmer raised with me today? His cattle, which are wintering in slatted rented accommodation that is unsuitable for calving, need to move back to his farm to calve, but, obviously, the forces of nature mean that there is a time limit. I know that the Minister cannot answer fully now, but will he ensure that the matter is considered?

Mr. Brown: That problem is similar, although not on the same scale, to that of the breeding flock of sheep. We are very conscious of it, but the hon. Gentleman, having described the problem accurately enough, will realise how difficult it is to deal with. Also, he will be familiar with


its scale. Let me repeat that last March more than 1 million lambs were born in the United Kingdom. The dairy industry, by its very nature, involves calving.

Mr. William Cash: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the manner in which he is taking these questions. May I ask about a matter that has just been raised in a European Scrutiny Committee? New European Union proposals—a draft directive and a draft regulation, of which I am sure he is aware—deal with health requirements for animal by-products not intended for human consumption. That will bear in the question of transport, as will the manner in which such a massive pile of documents deals with the question of animal by-products and their testing and the extent to which they may be dangerous to the public.
In the context of both present circumstances and the question whether the virus might have been imported—possibly from countries that do not have the high standards that we employ or from other countries, perhaps in Europe—can the Minister give an absolute assurance that these matters will be dealt with expeditiously so that there is no doubt as to the legislative, situation and the dangers to animal and human health?

Mr. Brown: I must be the first Labour Minister who has been able to respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying yes, in general terms, I can give him the assurance he seeks. What is more, later on I stall say something further. Given that he has asked a question, perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say that I have just been informed by our veterinary authorities that the German authorities advise that the sheep involved in the earlier containment exercise are not antibody positive. There is a threshold of negative status and work is continuing on a precautionary basis to consider that, I gut the fact that the sheep are not antibody positive is a hopeful sign.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been incredibly generous in giving way. I am also extremely grateful to him for that announcement, which comes as a great relief to me because I know that the problem was worrying Mr. Cleave at Burdon farm, Highampton.
I am also grateful to a veterinary surgeon in Holsworthy in my constituency for drawing to my attention the point that all the interventions that have been made only emphasise the importance of knowledge and information, for farmers as well as for others. I hope that the Minister will at least consider that. Many farmers are not on the internet, so will he encourage his officials immediately to post information and orders on, for ex ample, the Teletext and Ceefax services, which are available to nearly everybody? They are certainly available to nearly all my constituency farmers.

Mr. Brown: A helpline and other front-line advice is available and I shall write to all Members setting out the arrangements so that they will know where to turn if they are contacted by constituents. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one and I shall lave it examined by my officials. I specifically extend my sympathy to the farmers in his constituency, which is at the centre of this awful outbreak, and to the private veterinary officials who have been so helpful in dealing with it.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister suggested that he faces a crisis of this scale because it was not

possible to identify the problem at Heddon-on-the-Wall early enough without jumping to conclusions. He also said that he believed that the disease had not yet reached the breeding flock. Anyone who has handled sheep and experienced the problems of footrot and off knows that it is often incredibly difficult to establish whether an animal is suffering from foot and mouth. Will the right hon. Gentleman see what his Ministry can do to ensure that anyone with sheep knows how to look for the symptoms, and knows what action is necessary? The worst possibility is that the disease is incubating in sheep. As we know, it is more visible in cattle and pigs.

Mr. Brown: It is also fair to say that many farmers will not have seen the symptoms before. We therefore plan to write to every farmer with a livestock holding, including some with whom we do not communicate regularly—we had a problem with the pig sector, because it is an unaided regime—enclosing a simple factual leaflet explaining what the condition looks like and what precautionary measures can be taken. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is perfectly reasonable, and the Ministry is already on to it.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The issue of information has already been raised. Does the Minister recognise that it is important, and clearly consistent with the tone of the debate, for Members of Parliament to be involved with regard to their constituents? They are likely to hear of any confirmed outbreaks fairly quickly through the bush telegraph. However, will the Minister consider setting up a system whereby Members could be advised—perhaps by means of a pager number—of any outbreaks affecting their constituencies? That would enable them to answer constituents' queries accurately.

Mr. Brown: Obviously, many Members on both sides of the House will, very properly, be anxious for their constituents and will want to do the best they can for them. We all have that in common. I am writing to all Members giving front-line advice, and I will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board because I know how important it is for all of us to be able to provide our constituents with a front-line service in these difficult times.

Ms Candy Atherton: Will my right hon. Friend assist Cornwall county council, farmers and the community in my constituency? Owing to the siting of the county's periphery, we have fortunately not had any foot and mouth diagnosed as yet, and we want to keep it that way. Three trunk roads enter the county. The council, local MAFF officials and vets are united in wanting to install disinfectant baths on those three routes. Such baths have already been installed on the minor roads.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether that is the right thing to do; I shall take professional advice. Obviously, I do not wish to thwart any disease control measure, so I shall ensure that officials consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and that of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and convey their professional advice to me. I am afraid that I cannot give a fuller response at the moment.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's


customary generosity in giving way. Has he considered the position of the national milk record service, which regularly visits every dairy farm? I know that a number of farmers and the National Farmers Union in Wales have expressed concern and have suggested that the service should be suspended until we know that the dairy sector, in particular, is not affected.

Mr. Brown: That is an entirely reasonable point. We are also examining issues relating to the conduct of the census. It may be necessary to postpone activity in that regard, although I am not making an announcement today.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is earning the admiration of the whole House by his willingness to give way, and also by the competence that he has displayed in answering a raft of questions.
All of us with rural constituencies share the anxiety and apprehension of the farmers in those constituencies, but other businesses also depend on farming for their existence, not least small and medium-sized haulage businesses. I have received a communication from one such in my constituency, saying that if there are no movements of livestock within the next two or three weeks it will have to close its doors.
Does the Minister understand that when people talk of consequential loss, they have in mind the possibility that the Government will at least consider the fate of businesses of that kind, and give some consideration to compensating them in due course?

Mr. Brown: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. The livestock haulage business is a specialist business; it cannot find other markets easily. That is why I am working hard with officials, including the chief vet, to get the industry operating again. It will be able to do so only under licensed conditions—under controlled conditions. I will say something about that later, but it seems that the best way to give hope to the domestic livestock sector and to intermediary industries, including the abattoir and haulage sectors, is to get things working again in a way that does not involve a risk of spreading the disease. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it is possible to devise such arrangements for direct movement from farm to slaughterhouse as long as the animals do not meet other animals that will not be slaughtered.

Mr. Drew: As always, agriculture problems seem to come in multitudes. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems with bovine tuberculosis. What effect is the latest problem having on operations in the trial areas? More particularly, will there will be a loss of personnel, which happened with the outbreak of classical swine fever? Action has been somewhat delayed.

Mr. Brown: It is too early to tell what the long-term impact will be, but my hon. Friend is right. All veterinary resources that I have at my disposal at the minute are

focused on the elimination of foot and mouth disease. That is not to undermine the importance of the other tasks that we undertake in the Department.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall take all interventions because I understand how worrying this matter is to hon. Members and their constituents.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I have been contacted by a Mr. Fattorini, who farms in my constituency. His particular case concerns an auctioneer who goes to a farm to conduct a valuation and who, under current regulations and the ban on movement, is then not allowed to return to the mart for six days because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The question that has been put to me—if the Minister is not able to answer it immediately, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me—is, who should pay the fees for those six days?

Mr. Brown: The one thing that I can say with some certainty—I know that the hon. Lady will not like the answer—is that it is almost certainly not the Government who should pay. I cannot give her a more comprehensive answer, but I will write to her and see if it is possible to establish a more focused response than that.

Charlotte Atkins: Can my right hon. Friend give Mr. Bould, a long-established butcher in Leek, reassurance that movement of livestock to slaughter will soon he licensed, as it was in the 1967 outbreak, so that local butchers can continue to source from local livestock suppliers within Staffordshire, Moorlands and he can continue to provide local produce to customers, rather than having to resort to imports?

Mr. Brown: I can in general terms give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. That is the purpose of the licensing schemes that the Government have announced and intend to introduce on Friday. We have announced them now, so that those in the trade can reflect on what they mean to them. They are at least in part private sector arrangements. I cannot predict the total take-up because everyone will make their own business decisions, but it is the Government's intention to devise schemes that help small and medium-sized businesses and that are not just focused on large farms and large slaughterhouses. That is why we are also considering the idea of holding pens.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers want him, in addressing these movement issues, to put stopping the disease above everything else. He will also know that farmers would be happier if they felt that he was considering very carefully the issue of compensating farmers who are in the pig production chain and depend upon movement in it for their very existence. They—including many of my farmers—are facing a second experience of this type of situation in a very short time, and I believe that they would be better able to hold to addressing the pre-eminent issue—eradicating the disease—if he could I say something to give them some confidence that that there may be some help.

Mr. Brown: I can say two things that I hope provide at least partial comfort to the right hon. Gentleman's


constituents, who have been through a tough time with the classical swine fever outbreak. First, I am very conscious of the welfare issues that arise very quickly because of the stratified nature of the pig sector, but can also arise more generally in agricultural production when movement is restricted. I am looking at that issue very hard. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the pig sector, but the point also applies to animals that are about to give birth, particularly in the current circumstances, when they are not in the ideal geographical location.
The second thing that I hope will he of some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents is that I am trying hard, with all the other things Mat I have to do, to pay particular attention to the problems of the pig industry, which has been through tough times. I am also very conscious that, for reasons that we all understand, the normal European Union routes for helping agriculture do not work for the pig sector. I am considering ideas, including the suggestion by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, about other market intervention that might be of help.
Such matters have to be thought about very carefully, and I cannot announce the introduction of a new scheme today. Please have my assurance, how ever, that I am not going to overlook the interests of those involved in the pig sector, particularly the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, who have been through such tough times.

Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman may want to say a little more about licensing. However, in deciding which arrangements can be licensed, will he bear in mind the situation at the Malton bacon factory, for example, which is probably this country's biggest abattoir? Currently, 2,500 people are laid off, but many pig producers within 25 to 50 miles of Malton could benefit from the type of arrangement that he has suggested, which would allow the transport of animals ready for slaughter directly from farms to the abattoir. The alternative is not only serious damage to our pig production capacity—

Mr. Boswell: What about the welfare issue?

Mr. Greenway: Yes.
Not only could there be damage to production capacity, and further difficulties heaped on the problems of classical swine fever, but domestic product could be replaced by imports. That could not be in the interests of any part of our own meat business or in those of consumers.

Mr. Brown: I will get British product moving again for the purpose of providing for our domestic market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is nothing that I could do to help the pig sector more than getting it moving again. However, as he also knows, no farm species is more vulnerable to foot and mouth disease than pigs. Not only does it seem to affect them in a particularly virulent way, but they pump it out more than other animals do.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is being very helpful. May I bring him back to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Pife (Mr. Campbell) about livestock hauliers—many of whom were already in

a parlous state before this episode of foot and mouth? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was helpful in that he recognised that that is a specialist haulage sector, for which other markets are not easily available. However, does he also recognise that the specialist drivers who are engaged in that business would be difficult to replace if those companies go out of business in the short term? Will he therefore ensure that either he or one of his colleagues sits round the table with representatives of the livestock hauliers and Ministers from both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury? Cross-departmental initiatives could and must be taken to preserve the livestock haulage industry, which is desperately important.

Mr. Brown: Meetings are, of course, taking place across Government, and yesterday's ministerial meeting presided over by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was significant among them. I cannot promise direct financial assistance to the sector about which the hon. Gentleman asks, but he is right to emphasise the specialist skills of those drivers. My plan is to get them back to work and make use of their specialist knowledge in ensuring that the effect of the crucial licensing regime, combined with responsible handling of the animals, is maximised. That is especially important when animals are being moved to a holding area rather than to an abattoir.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend will be aware that foot and mouth disease has been confirmed in my constituency. Does he know what movements of cattle trucks there may have been at the farm involved? Are the vehicles' routes being tracked back? Are the vehicles being checked, and fully and professionally cleaned?

Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he so properly seeks. There is an enormous amount of work to be undertaken by the veterinary authorities, but every vehicle is being checked. All point-of-slaughter records at abattoirs are being checked, as are all market records, and the latter takes an enormous amount of work. Checking is also being conducted on a farm-by-farm basis.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the Minister on his extremely helpful response to the debate. Will he confirm that there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland? Does he agree that farmers and other folk must not be complacent about moving around the Scottish countryside just because there has been no outbreak there?
The Prime Minister touched on the question of the disinfectant supply. He said that disinfectant was being produced but that difficulties were being experienced in getting it to certain areas. I know that the supply has run out in part of Argyll. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about that?

Mr. Brown: In response to her question about disinfectant, I can tell the hon. Lady that we will make an order this afternoon to add 35 disinfectants to the approved list. That administrative act will ensure that supplies of substances that are effective in this context increase dramatically. In general there is sufficient disinfectant, but the problem is that it is not in the right


place. We have asked the trade to establish a website setting out where disinfectant is located, so that those who need it will be able to order it direct.
The hon. Lady asked about Scotland's present disease-free status. I want that status to be maintained. I am working closely with Ross Finnie, and my veterinary authorities are working closely with their counterparts in Scotland. Our best hope of defeating the disease lies in there being a close working relationship between the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government.
If it is possible to make an early bid for disease-free status for part of the UK—Northern Ireland is probably the strongest candidate—I am willing to grant that status, as long the claim can be substantiated with the European Union. However, the hon. Lady probably knows that there are substantial movements of animals—especially sheep—between Northumberland and Scotland. Although I hope that Scotland remains disease free, it is too early to say with complete assurance that it will. We are doing everything possible to eradicate the disease throughout the United Kingdom, and I am grateful for the help and support that we are getting from the authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for his kindness and courtesy in taking so many interventions. Mr. Tom Fare is a very worried pig farmer in my constituency. Like many others, he would be most grateful if the Minister would return to a point that he made earlier and say a little more about the work being done to track down the disease's true origins, rather than simply where it started. A number of rumours are swirling around about whether it was caused by imported meat or swill from airports, schools or goodness knows where. The answer to that question will determine our strategy in defending ourselves from this scourge in the future.
My constituent also asks whether, when the immediate crisis has passed, the Minister will give consideration to launching a national exercise to assess whether we have abattoirs in the right places and in the right numbers.

Mr. Brown: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman quite the response that he wants about abattoirs. However, he is right that it is essential to understand how this virus—and, indeed, the classical swine fever virus—got into our country. We have been free of it for something like 20 years, and it is absolutely certain that it has not been hibernating here in the United Kingdom. It got into the United Kingdom from somewhere else, and I will have more to say about that later.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I support everything that my right hon. Friend has done, including closing footpaths and stopping people walking on open land, but the effect on the tourist industry in Cumbria could be drastic. We are fortunate in the Lake district that things are quite quiet at present, but if the ban continues over Easter and into the summer, the tourist industry will suffer great devastation. Many of those affected will be farmers who have diversified into tourism. Will my right hon. Friend talk to his colleagues about help for those people?
As for the export of dairy products, a factory in my constituency makes a considerable amount of milk powder. Obviously, because of the heat treatment of the

milk powder, there is no threat to anyone, but at present there is a ban. Will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food give priority to lifting the ban on exports, not only to European Union countries but to other countries where the company sends its products? If the factory cannot continue to manufacture, that will create another problem for our farmers.

Mr. Brown: MAFF officials are having close discussions with EU officials and individual member states about the extent and proportionality of the ban. Although I cannot make any immediate announcement, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working closely with others on the problems that he highlights. Depending on how circumstances develop, it may be possible to do something that would help his constituents further on. However, much depends on the scale of the problem and on our ability to bear down on it. No countries will allow foot and mouth disease in, to infect their national flocks and herds, and we do not allow it in here either.
My hon. Friend is right about farm diversification. That is why we are taking very tough measures now, in the hope that we can prevent the spread of the disease with the movement restrictions, contain it with quarantine, and then eliminate it with our slaughter policy. In other words, I hope that this will not be a protracted episode; that is what we are trying hard to avoid. However, I cannot make that promise to the House today.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I, like many others, have a farmer in my constituency who has made urgent representations to me about the imminent impact of the 30-month limit on prime beef cattle that he now cannot move to market. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about that problem?

Mr. Brown: I am trying to put movement arrangements in place so that prime animals can move again, although under strict conditions. That requires a response from the private sector. The best thing that I can do for the hon. Gentleman's constituents is to get the supply chain moving again without spreading the disease. Both are important, and if a priority has to be chosen, it is to prevent the spread of the disease.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier plea about the plight of the small abattoir in my constituency—the only one in Hampshire—and I hope that he will be able to say something about that.
When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the details of his licensing arrangements, will he also take into account the needs of a very new company in my constituency that doing fantastic work in producing porcine collagen for medical purposes? The company needs 30 or 40 skins a week to satisfy demand, and it has no more supply. If the Minister could take that into account when considering the licensing arrangements, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Brown: We are trying to deal with a number of specialist issues; the hon. Gentleman rightly mentions one of them. I do not want to give him an absolute assurance because my first priority is to ensure that anything I allow to move—even under licence—does not risk spreading the disease. However, subject to that, I will ask MAFF


officials to look into the specific issue that he raises. First, I will write to him setting out the exact circumstances that prevail and why. Secondly, I will see whether we can do anything to help his constituents who are employed in that specialist area of activity.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have transferred from MAFF's budget a sum of money to the Department of Health—in essence, to the Meat Hygiene Service—with a view to underpinning the veterinary costs involved in the operation of small abattoirs. It is my intention that the changes in movement patterns that I announced yesterday should be of advantage to small operators as well as large ones. It is slightly harder to arrange that, but it is the Government's intention; we want to help all the people involved to get some movement into their businesses—even if that cannot be in normal trading circumstances.
I have taken many interventions; I know that that is not conventional, even for agriculture debates. I am aware of how many Members on both sides of the House want to make representations on behalf of their constituents and to do the right thing by them in difficult and rapidly changing circumstances. However, I shall now move on to the set piece of my text, as it contains information that I know the House will want to have.
I have urged the public to exercise responsibility and to avoid all unnecessary visits to farms and farmland. However, where such visits are unavoidable, procedures for disinfection should be followed in order to reduce the risk of transmitting the disease from farm to farm. That advice seems simple and straightforward, and I urge everybody to listen carefully and to follow it. I am grateful for the responsible approach that has been taken by farmers, the general public and Close responsible for organising sporting events and other large gatherings in the countryside. That includes organisations with which I do not otherwise agree.
Unfortunately, not everyone is following the advice that we have given, so local authorities have been given powers to declare prohibited areas and to close footpaths and rights of way in and around farmland. I understand that Dartmoor and Exmoor national parks have been closed to the public. That is right. I urge local authorities to prosecute people who insist on arguing about those measures. We are beyond argument the measures are necessary in order to control the disease.
Of course, the most important measure for controlling the disease is the ban on animal movements. On the advice of the chief veterinary officer, we will be extending the controlled area measures, including the ban on livestock movements within Great Britain, for two more weeks from 2 March. We may then need to consider further movement restrictions—I know that that is unwelcome news. At present we just do not know, but if it is necessary, we shall have to do it.
At the same time, we are working up details of the schemes that we have discussed whereby healthy animals can go direct from the farm to an abattoir, under strictly controlled conditions, to supply the food chain. That will go ahead only if the chief veterinary officer advises me that such arrangements are fully compatible with controlling the disease outbreak. Details of the scheme are being worked up in conjunction with representatives of the livestock industry, and I plan to announce further details on Friday.
I am also considering whether it would be safe to have licensed collection centres for animals going for slaughter. However, the Government cannot reopen livestock markets generally at this stage. In that context, I am considering what can be done to help with the range of problems associated with the operation of the over-30-months scheme.
We are liaising closely with the Commission and our European Union partners. The Standing Veterinary Committee extended the export ban on UK livestock and products for a further week to 9 March. The committee will meet again on Tuesday 6 March to take stock of the situation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the EU. The Government welcome that approach. I would prefer the necessary control measures to be renewed short period by short period, as that would provide an opportunity at each stage to review them and to respond quickly to emerging and, I hope, improving circumstances.
As the House would expect, the Government's immediate and overriding priority is the control and eradication of the disease. However, epidemiological investigations into the source are continuing. That brings me to the question that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) perfectly properly asked me earlier. There was no known foot and mouth disease in the EU, which suggests that the source was outside the EU. There are strict controls banning imports from areas where foot and mouth disease is endemic. Imports from such a source would be illegal.
There is no special reason to believe that the disease was imported from South Africa. South Africa has in place a ban on exports from infected areas, and in any case, the United Kingdom introduced measures to prohibit South African imports before similar EU measures were introduced.
I can confirm to the House—this goes to the root of the right hon. Gentleman's question—that the earliest outbreak of the disease was that confirmed in pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on Friday last week. Veterinary inspection suggests that the disease was present in the pigs for up to two weeks before it was notified by the farmer to MAFF veterinary staff. An investigation is under way and, partly for legal reasons, I am unable to give the House any further details.
When the disease has been brought under control, I shall want to examine carefully the implications that increased world travel, the globalisation of agricultural trade and modern farming methods have on disease control. I have asked for an examination of the current enforcement and control measures.
Farm incomes have been severely depressed for four years. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease means further serious hardship for a very large number of farmers and their families. There are serious impacts on farmers whose animals must be slaughtered and on those whose businesses are disrupted by the movement restrictions necessary to control and isolate the disease.
The Government are doing all we can to help. Farmers whose animals must be slaughtered as a disease control measure are compensated to the full market value of their stock. In addition, I announced yesterday that the Government plan to draw down the full amount of agrimonetary compensation available for livestock farmers. That amounts to a total of about £170 million, of which £16 million is the compulsory element that has


previously been announced. That brings the total amount of agrimonetary compensation paid under the Government to £786 million since the last election.
To benefit pig farmers, I plan to open a second round of the outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme, bringing forward money already announced and allocated for future financial years. Although I cannot make a further announcement today, I am carefully considering what else might be done to help the pig sector. I promise to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, and I am mindful of the other interventions that I have taken in this debate.

Mr. James Paice: I want to ask the Minister about the pig outgoers scheme and the announcement that he made yesterday. He introduced that scheme to deal with the serious crisis that existed in the pig industry until about a year ago. However, last autumn or late summer, he introduced the pig industry development scheme, which we shall debate in Committee tomorrow. That scheme was aimed at the problems caused to pig farmers caught in the swine fever outbreak who could not move their pigs off the farm. That operation, rather than the outgoers scheme, seems much more analogous to the current position. It is perfectly understandable that the Minister is shopping around his budget and looking for some money to use, but will he explain why he is using the outgoers scheme, not the development scheme, to help the industry?

Mr. Brown: There is a long history to this issue, and I fought to get the scheme in place before the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia occurred. I had the money from the Treasury, but not the approval of the Commission. Both elements were necessary to get the scheme under way, but the other parties tried to attach a whole range of conditions to it.
My immediate purpose is to try to help people who, because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, are wondering again about their long-term commitment to the industry, and who have not bid for the first round of the outgoers scheme, but who might now like to do so. I am not saying that there are people in those circumstances; I genuinely do not know. However, if there are, they will be among the most worried, and they might suddenly like to find an exit route. It is to help them that I have managed to get permission from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw some moneys forward.
That does not mean that I have stopped thinking about the rest of the industry. However, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) knows, although we have gone through the most terrible downturn in trade, with incomes falling below the costs of production—that is not sustainable in the longer term—prospects for the sector are looking up. We have all worked hard to bring that about, and individual farmers making business decisions might not find the scheme an attractive option, or may prefer to wait until they see how the condition—it is not an epidemic—emerges in the national herds and flocks. It may be significant—I say, touching wood—that the latest cases, with all the attendant difficulties, involve cattle and sheep but not pigs.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has treated the House in an exemplary

manner this afternoon, and that is widely recognised. I hope that he will have sensed that the House wants to help him. Because many of his answers will of necessity be tentative—he cannot of be definitive about many issues—will he assure the House that he will keep us regularly informed? Will he give thought to the idea of producing a newsletter perhaps once a week for Members of Parliament, so that we know what is happening and he can keep us updated?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I accept that I am under an obligation to keep the House regularly informed; all Ministers are accountable to the House. I will consider what more we can do to keep Men bers of Parliament informed as this rapidly changing situation develops. I intend to write to Members with front-line advice that will help them to deal with individual constituency inquiries, but a bulletin that sets out progress and is available to Members might also help. I will have a hard look at that suggestion and come back to the hon. Gentleman with a definitive answer.
Private storage aid has been mentioned. I have said that we shall consider that, as it might be a way forward. I am raising a range of issues with Commissioner Fischler, who I know will try to help. All sorts of anomalies arise with the administration of the European Union support schemes, and they require the good will of the Commission in these difficult circumstances. However, it is right that I should report to the House that I found nothing but sympathy and good will from Ministers, the presidency and the Commission when I addressed them at the Council meeting late on Monday night.
Those who hold ministerial office realise what a difficult and intractable problem this is. The expressions of good will have teen given practical effect by offers from our European Union partners of extra veterinary assistance should the chief veterinary officer need to call on it. He can call not only on the resources of the European Union, but on those of our major trading partners worldwide.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I echo what has been said about the Minister's response today. Will he ask the Commissioner to consider the issues that affect smaller abattoirs with low throughput? The Minister will recall that I have met him with several delegations to discuss the issues that affect smaller abattoirs, and I note that the Minister for the Environment has said today that special help will be given to them in future.
Given the number of smaller abattoirs that have disappeared—to be fair. I must add that that happened under his predecessors rather than while he has been in office—will the Minister consider particularly the issue of locality? It is not just the size of the abattoirs but their location that has caused the problem. The fact that animals have to travel long distances has undoubtedly accentuated the difficulties that we now face. Will he consider that specific issue?

Mr. Brown: Even in this day and age, there are many abattoirs between Northumberland, where the original outbreak started, and Essex. It was necessary for the animals to travel such a long distance because of the specialist nature of the abattoir trade. It is not the last journey that is the most dangerous, because the animals are isolated from other livestock when they go to


slaughter. The virus is breathed out, and animals cease to breathe once they are slaughtered, so the danger of spreading the disease is much reduced, although not entirely removed.
There are other public policy reasons why one might want to support the small abattoir sector. We are addressing those across Departments. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has said. In addition, the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing with the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service is also relevant. My immediate task is to devise a movement scheme that encompasses not just the large operators, but the small and medium-sized sector too, so that they have hope for the future. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything that I can to achieve that objective.

Mr. Gill: In response to a parliamentary question in November, the Minister of State said:
we are not aware that animal welfare has been in any way compromised by longer journey times from farm to slaughter."—[Official Report, 24 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 325W.]
Is that still the Government's view?

Mr. Brown: Yes. We carry out inspections, and individual abuses are sometimes found, but journey times and patterns conform with the regulatory regime. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am trying to get that tightened, but it is a matter for European Union law.
We are also in contact with the clearing banks to discuss the issue of cash flow to farm businesses affected by the disease outbreak. The clearing banks are interested in our assessment. I cannot be as certain as I should like to be, but the announced intention to draw down not just the compulsory part of the agrimonetary scheme but a much larger discretionary element will have a significant impact on our discussions. However, I cannot give a commitment on compensation for other losses in the supply chain. I do not want to mislead people by holding out the prospect of another source of financial aid. The best help that I can give is to control and eradicate the disease as soon as possible.
I want to add a caveat: the Government are keeping a close eye on the implications for farm animal welfare. Given the experience of the classical swine fever outbreak last summer, it is clear to everyone involved that an important issue is at stake. I hope that we do not have to reconsider it, but I alert the House to the fact that we may.
The Government's priority is to control and eradicate the disease. The licensing of movement between farms and abattoirs from the end of this week will begin to get the haulage business, the abattoirs am the food processors that use British food products back to work. We all want that to happen.
I am grateful for the tone of the Opposition motion, with which I fully agree. I am also grateful for the measured way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House—who are, of course, worried on behalf of their constituents—have put their questions. This is a serious issue for our country. I hope that we can unite to support the necessary control measures and, by working together, eradicate the disease. Once that is done, we can take a close interest in how the outbreak started and what extra measures are necessary to prevent it from happening

again. We need to get our industry back to working normally and to restore our country's high reputation for having an enduring disease-free status.

Mr. Colin Breed: I, too, welcome the Minister's contribution. I welcome also the constructive opposition evident in the tone and content of the Conservative motion, which has enabled us all to debate the issue.
Almost a fortnight ago hon. Members discussed the aftermath of BSE; I do not think that any of us thought that we would be debating the serious issue of foot and mouth only days later. The BSE crisis led to the Phillips report, which made me think about the lessons that we might have learned from the 1967 epidemic of foot and mouth disease and the single outbreak on the Isle of Wight in 1981. Hon. Members have referred to incidents of the disease in Europe, such as that in Greece only a year ago.
It is inconceivable that, following those incidents, nothing was done and no reports were commissioned to consider the way in which the spread of disease was changing along with the patterns of farming and trading. Indeed, it has come to my attention that the European Commission published an agriculture report entitled "Animal health and related problems in densely populated livestock areas of the Community", which detailed the proceedings of a workshop held in Brussels on 22 November 1994—quite some time ago. I will not quote large chunks of the report, but I hope that officials and others will take the opportunity to re-read it because Phillips taught us that we must look back to see what lessons could have been learned and what measures could have been taken.
There are some telling paragraphs in the report's conclusions and recommendations. Under the heading "The problem", the report says:
This means that despite the immediate economic advantages, high density areas may prove to be unsustainable in the long term.
It goes on to say:
Good management has a significant role to play in preventing the entry of infection into units and in avoiding the worst consequences".
It further says:
The present trade in animals poses great risks to the sanitary situation,
and suggests ways in which those risks might be reduced.
Perhaps most telling is the paragraph on long-term solutions, which says:
The environmental pollutions and disease epidemics that are being encountered in dense livestock areas are but symptoms of a more deep-seated structural malaise. This can only be solved in a systems approach that encompasses animal health, environmental and economic components … The European Commission is asked to ensure that research is coordinated so that the animal health, economic and environmental aspects are brought together in a comprehensive strategy.
In the long term, the risks posed by dense livestock areas can only be reduced by some measure of restructuring achieved through self-regulation, economic incentives or, in the last resort, by legislation. All these avenues should be explored.
I do not know whether any of those avenues have been explored, but as that workshop was held almost six and a half years ago perhaps someone decided that we ought to examine the issues. One might postulate that if there had


been some such activity, we might have been able to put preventive measures in place. This island nation could, perhaps, protect itself from disease better than any other part of the European Community.
I do not want those remarks to divert attention from the No. 1 priority, which is to find the source of the outbreak, to contain it and to eradicate it as soon as possible. Like others, I am concerned about whether we have the resources—not financial but human—to deal with the whole problem. Experienced vets have to be in an enormous number of places. If the spread of foot and mouth disease continues, vets will be able to continue for a while but they will be working a tremendous number of hours. I wonder whether we shall have the necessary human resources to undertake all the controls and inspections.

Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. The state veterinary service and private sector vets are working long hours and extraordinarily hard to try to get the epidemic under control—the condition under control. It does not yet have epidemic status.
The question that the hon. Gentleman asks is one that I put daily to the chief vet, Jim Scudamore. I have said to him on behalf of the Government that if he needs extra resources and needs to recruit extra vets, he should do so. He knows that that is the position. At present, he says that he has the resources that he needs, or is getting them. We have had generous offers of help from our European Union partners and from our trading partners more widely.

Mr. Breed: I am extremely grateful for that news. It might be an appropriate moment to congratulate the chief vet on the way in which he is handling the mechanics and logistics and on his openness, honesty and balanced communications through the media, which have significantly reduced panic.
One of the issues is the growth of what might be called dealers. I am talking about farmers and dealers and even abattoirs and dealers, and the way in which animals are moved. Only today, one of the farmers in my constituency, Mr. Martin, who farms near Mount Edgecumbe, told me that he bought a suckler calf in a market about a couple of weeks ago. When he received the paperwork, he was astounded to learn that the calf had been through two farms and three markets in the previous four weeks. That is extraordinary. The calf had travelled a long way before Mr. Martin bought it. He was not aware of that at the time. That highlights the fact that animals are tradeable commodities.
If an animal is going through several markets, it is incurring additional costs, such as transport costs, commission costs and auctioneers' fees. Those charges add cost to the animal, and none of that is coming back to the farmer. It is all being dissipated at a distance from the primary producer. If some of the money were part of the profit on the animal for the fanner, we would not be facing some of the current problems.
I know that, in a way, dealers underpin the market. They sometimes provide fluidity and liquidity, but they have a serious effect that needs to be considered by the Ministry.
Compensation is on many people's minds. They are fearful, and much of that fear relates to the fact that they are losing money every day. The industry has gone through a period of intensification and specialisation. The opportunities for farmers and others—we have heard already about hauliers—to derive income in other ways is much diminished. They are specialist suppliers for a specialist industry. The intensification and specialisation of the industry to achieve economies of scale have driven away multi-providers. That is the significant difference between now and the past, when consequential losses were not considered because there were opportunities to make money elsewhere. Those opportunities no longer exist, and that should focus the Government's mind.
We have talked about the over-30-months scheme. The sooner that we can deal with animals that might be caught up in it, the better.
With regard to consequential loss, I shall quote from a couple of letters, which are heartfelt. The first is from a farmer in South Mol on, who writes:
As a sixth generation Exmoor farmer with a young family, it is extremely hard to describe the terror, worry and sheer anxiety that this foot and mouth outbreak is causing my immediate family. I run both beef and sheep and am not afraid of hard work. Firstly, I live downwind, albeit 35 miles from the Hatherleigh cluster of outbreaks. Secondly, my partner still works in her father's livestock haulage business so we can attempt to have a decent lifestyle. This would have brought her innocently in contact with other livestock.
Those are some of the worries that our constituents are experiencing.
The letter continues: 
If any good is to come out of this potential disaster for family farmers, rural communities and ultimately the whole country, it must be that we, as a nation, need to regain control of our food chain. This means we need to feed ourselves with high quality, local produce. The distance between slaughter, in the case of meat, and consumption needs to be as small as possible. This may take time and encouragement as our level of production has been cut back to such low levels we are now incapable of feeding ourselves.
The second letter is from a haulier, who states:
As a long established family firm (four generations), this is causing unimaginable financial and mental stress on everybody concerned. We are dedicated livestock hauliers and cannot turn to other work. As an example, we have not got or have time to obtain the necessary certificate to move fertiliser, not that anybody wants a livestock haulier driving around their farm or business at this time.
The letter goes on:
All our staff cannot he laid off for 90 days, not that we want to…With 20 employees our weekly basic wage is in the region of £5000. With no income this obviously cannot continue for any length of time. The state of agriculture was bad enough with bad debts running at record levels, before this current problem. I am concerned that consequential loss compensation is not being considered by government for ancillary trades.
Those letters graphically describe the fears and worries of those who are operating in a specialist area where there is no opportunity for other income to be raised.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was surprised to learn that another group affected are pelagic fishermen, whom most people would not see as immediate victims of the foot and mouth outbreak. At a time when the mackerel fishery is becoming important, the Russian Government have decided to ban the import of fish as a precaution. I hope that MAFF will do all it can to persuade the Russian Government to be a little more rational about food safety.

Mr. Breed: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am sure that the Minister has taken note.
On the situation as it affects pigs, I remind the Minister that we had a successful pig welfare disposal scheme last year, following the swine fever outbreak. Perhaps a similar scheme should be reactivated in the current situation.
Finally, I was surprised to read that the Government may even be considering vaccination—

Mr. Brown: On the basis of professional advice and pleadings from the entire industry, the Government are not considering vaccination, although we have stocks of vaccine, of course. The European Union has enormous stocks of vaccine, to which it would allow us access if necessary, but to compromise permanently our disease-free status by using vaccines would eradicate much of our export business and would have a deleterious effect on the long-term future of the livestock sector, so we will not use vaccines.

Mr. Breed: I am delighted to heir that. If we, as an island nation, with the obvious barrier of the sea, cannot protect ourselves and retain our disease-free status, it would be a bad show. No doubt the suggestion originated from some of our French colleagues, as France is one of the largest producers of the vaccine and they may have seen a ready market.
The Government's message must he clearly stated. We were disease free for many years, and we must return to that situation. Such protections that were in force, and should have been in force, must be reinforced if we are to ensure that, once this terrible outbreak has been conquered, we do not become susceptible to it ever again.

Mr. Doug Henderson: It is appropriate that the House should not today debate transport policy, other than the statement that is to be made later. I am pretty sure that, one way or another, some of my constituents will have been involved in the terrible accident that took place this morning. My thoughts and sympathies are with the injured and the families who have suffered fatalities
The debate has provided an opportunity for a useful question-and-answer session. During Monday's statement, some doubt was expressed about whether the House could pull together on this serious matter affecting not only the countryside but the whole country. Today's debate, the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister has given way so generously and hon. Members' serious questions show a change of tone, which I hope we shall be able to sustain. Few who are involved in the issue believe that it will disappear tomorrow, next week, or even next month. If the House is to give the country a lead, we must, wherever possible, avoid unnecessary political division, however difficult that might be.
The Minister is a colleague of mine from Newcastle upon Tyne and I have the highest admiration for the way in which he is leading his team in tackling this terrible disease. Everyone to whom I have spoken in the farming and the urban communities has the highest regard for the dedication and determination with which my right hon. Friend has conducted his business curing the past weeks and before.
I do not usually take part in agriculture debates in the House. I was brought up in a part mining, part agricultural community. There was a farm opposite my railway house

and I remember the previous outbreak in the 1960s and its impact on the community. However, since then I have tended to wander into industrial and urban landscapes. My constituency on the west and north-west of Newcastle upon Tyne is essentially an urban constituency, with 99 per cent. of the people living an urban or suburban life, but the largest land area in my constituency is farmland.
Many of the farms in my constituency are what I would call nouveau farms—not the typical farm where the farm owner and farm workers live on the farm. That is becoming less typical in many more traditional agricultural areas, but in my constituency many farms are contracting farms where the land is owned by a third party, a farm business in another part of the country, and a contractor manages the farm business. The dangers and difficulties in that become all too obvious in the situation that we now face.
The farm where it is alleged that the outbreak began straddles my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). Most of the farm buildings are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and much of the land is in mine.
The second farm that has been infected at Black Callerton is almost entirely in my constituency. The farm owner has just taken over from his father, who died recently. He is a well-known and respected agriculturalist in the community of south Northumberland and north-west Newcastle upon Tyne. It is a tragedy that his farm has been affected by the events of the past week.
Last Sunday evening, there was a big bonfire on Burnside farm, which is a few hundred metres or less from the A69, just outside the urban area of Newcastle. Carcases were piled high and the flames went higher; 70 tonnes of coal were used to attempt to burn away the disease, producing a terribly acrid smell across the surrounding farmland. It was extremely traumatic to witness the event. Its impact on the lives of young people who saw it, whether they came from the farming community, perhaps in Heddon-on-the-Wall, or some of the other traditionally industrial villages in my constituency, such as Throckley, Lemmington and Newburn, will last for ever.
From all those locations, one could see the flames and get the impression of what was happening. It was bad that people had to suffer the event, but there was some benefit. It demonstrated to the local community the seriousness of the situation that we face. As it was well covered on television, it also showed the gravity of the situation to a wider community within the country. That probably helped a lot of people who might otherwise have needed a bit more persuasion to understand what needed to be done. It was unfortunate for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hexham that they were nearer the fire and felt more of the impact, but it will none the less raise public consciousness of the seriousness of the disease.
I do not like to be a historian unnecessarily, but I think that there is a need for more public education than has previously been provided. In 1960–61, when a major outbreak lasted six months, it was only seven years after rationing and only 15 years or less since war controls had been in place, so there was public understanding of the need to play by the rules in times of national emergency. I am not so sure that our community is as prepared now. We have a public education duty to explain that the 


current situation is serious and can affect the whole country and beyond. We must explain why it should be tackled with that sense of gravity.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has relieved some of our fears and dealt with some of the genuine points that have been made. I should like as succinctly as possible to outline the themes that should be reinforced as part of the public education that I have described. First, we must continually emphasise the need to tackle the problem as it exists. We must all be prepared to do what is necessary to make our contribution, whether farmers are marooned on their land, businesses cannot conduct their activities as they wish or people cannot travel to the areas that they normally visit for whatever purposes, be they recreational or otherwise. We must take the necessary measures and stress continually that all must play their part if we are to tackle the disease as speedily as possible.
Secondly, people are asking a question that I raised in Question Time on Monday: "How could this possibly have happened in our community? We thought that foot and mouth disease had gone, so what has happened to allow it to recur?" As a political community, in the Government or the House, we must reassure the public that everything has been done to get to the root cause. We must use the best scientific advice and investigatory powers to find out why Burnside farm, on the edge of my constituency, was probably the source. Where did the disease come from? How did it get there?
Lots of rumours are flying about Tyneside: perhaps the swill was not dealt with properly on the farm, or poisoned or infected food may have got into it. There is an international airport nearby. Did the swill come from there? All those questions are being asked by local people and the farming community will be well aware of the need to identify how the disease got to Heddon. If we can find that out, we shall be much better able to trace what happened afterwards and find out how the secondary infection began. We must do so to raise public confidence.
The agriculture industry has suffered in recent times because of unforeseen and previously unexperienced events such as the terrible problem of BSE. Now it has to deal with foot and mouth on top of that. It must try to re-establish its credibility with the public, and we have a responsibility and a duty to help it to do so. For that reason, we must identify the source of the infection, although my right hon. Friend the Minister may face another issue in discussions with the European Union.
Although the outbreak began in the United Kingdom, and even though we have taken unilateral action with the co-operation and support of the EU, we cannot predict what will happen. We do not know the extent of the spread of the infection. We do not know how many EU countries will become involved. We do not know what the extent of that involvement will be or what relationship those countries have with their suppliers in other parts of the world.
The EU will probably become involved farther down the line in the way in which we resolve a number of matters such as how we put in place measures to try to prevent what has happened at Heddon-on-the-Wall and elsewhere from happening again and the eventual relaxation of controls in this country and perhaps in others. It may also become involved in how we consider

compensation, who should qualify for it and who should pay for it. We shall probably become more and more involved with the EU when we deal with such issues, unless the outbreak is curtailed quickly. Although we all want it to be curtailed I as quickly as possible, I doubt that it will be.
We must be prepared to take action for a sustainable period. A constituent asked me how long that might be, but I do not know and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend the Minister and the scientists know. We should consider the pattern of the major infections of 1960–61 and 1967: it was impossible to predict when we would reach the critical point at which the graph would dip, the extent of the spread would begin to reduce and the measures put in place to counter that spread could be relaxed.
We may not be aware of the critical point until we have passed it, and dealing with such a crisis is like climbing a mountain: we may have reached the first peak, but we will not know how many peaks we have to tackle until we reach the final one—the summit. We may get convincing scientific documentation and opinion that shows that the situation is beginning to improve only after we have passed that critical point, which we cannot predict. My reading about previous major infections suggests that we perhaps have better controls in place, so we should get a grip and control the spread of the disease more quickly. However, we are in the hands of the gods in many ways.
Another priority for the House is a quick return to normality for farmers. Those in Newcastle and in Northumberland will welcome Friday's statement on putting into practice new licensing arrangements to allow, where possible, sound animals to be taken to the marketplace. That represents a first step back to normality; we shall expect others to be taken in due course.
I understand that the current compensation scheme has been in place for many years. It might be useful if the Ministry considered whether it should be reviewed. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the effect on the tourist industry in the Lake district. Is there a case for helping that industry? In my area of Northumberland, the wall generates a sizeable tourist industry in summer, and must provide access for many hundreds of thousands of people if it is to remain viable. Clearly that activity will be curtailed if this dreadful infection persists into the spring, with financial consequences for many who are involved.
I think that the public will rally if we can convince them of the seriousness of the situation. The farming community knows how serious it is, but the public have to be convinced. It is important for the House to give them a lead, and we can best do that by backing sensible measures taken by Government. I do not mean to be obsequious to the Government—I assure you that I am not that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; not even to my right hon. Friend the Minister—but I believe that we must give that support. It will involve accountability on the Government's part, however, so that questions can be asked about the way in which the situation is developing, and about progress or investigation and curtailment. Such questions will be asked here on a number of occasions in the coming months.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. With the leave of the House, and given the special circumstances that overhang the debate, I call the Minister to make a short statement.

Mr. Nick Brown: With the leave a the House, I wish to report further cases of foot and mouth disease.
As of 5.30 pm, the total number of cases in the United Kingdom is 26. There are two further cases, in Warwickshire and Chelmsford. We have already traced links with earlier sources: the Warwickshire case is linked by transport to the seventh outbreak, in Devon. The link with the Chelmsford outbreak has not yet been traced, but the farm is contiguous with the site of an earlier case. The Warwickshire outbreak involves 80 sheep and 220 cattle; on the Chelmsford holding, 600 sheep and two pigs are affected.

Mr. John MacGregor: I thank the Minister for his statement. It underlines the gravity of this outbreak and, sadly, the fear that it may continue for some time.
Let me begin by declaring an interest. As the Register of Members' Interests states, I am a non-executive director of two companies that are inevitably involved in the problem: Associated British Foods and Uniq. However, I shall speak mainly on behalf of the agriculture industry and farmers. As the Minister knows, I represent not only a major agricultural area, but one of the country's key pig-farming areas, which was heavily affected by classical swine fever. I am grateful for the Minister's acknowledgement of the plight of the pig sector.
I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has approached the debate. As one who knows how difficult it is to deal with these issues, I pay tribute to the comprehensive and understanding, way in which he is handling them. He will know that he has the support of the whole House. He certainly has my support in all the measures that he is taking. Before I came to the two main points that I want to make, let me refer to two of those measures briefly—they have already been dealt with at some length.
The first is in relation to disinfectant. I am getting the same reports as everyone else: there is a real worry that disinfectant is still not getting through to where it is needed. Obviously, if there are more outbreaks such as those that the Minister has just announced, that becomes a more important issue. I know that he is paying attention to that matter and I am grateful for his announcement earlier, but it will be a key issue.
The second is in relation to the licensed slaughter scheme, which I understand the Minister intends to announce on Friday. He put the point fairly—I am paraphrasing his words, not quoting—when he said that the issue was to get the supply chain moving without compromising the eradication of the disease. Although I fully understand the desire to get the supply chain moving, as that would deal with many issues, including the demands of the supermarkets, I hope that he will err on the side of caution. From my awareness of some of the issues and complications involved, it may take him more than two days. I would not mind if it did. I am well aware of some of the issues and it could easily go wrong. I am sure that the whole industry would prefer to have an absolutely cast-iron scheme than to move too quickly.
In that context, the Minister said that he had had discussions with representatives of the livestock industry; I know that he has had discussions with the National Farmers Union. My understanding, as of lunchtime today, was that one of the chief executives of a major processing firm and abattoir had not yet been consulted. As he might be exactly the sort of person who will be heavily involved in the practical implementation of the scheme, perhaps the Minister should look at that matter and consider whether to consult more widely.
I can cover my two main points briefly because so much has been said already. In both the points, I aim to strengthen the Minister's hand in what he is trying to do. The first is on compensation. Of course, I welcome the announcements on the agrimonetary compensation payments and on the acceleration of the pig outgoers scheme, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) brought out well, in the light of the effects of sterling on the agricultural industry, the agrimonetary compensation payments should have been in place anyway and were designed for a different purpose.
It is helpful that the Minister has been able to get the Treasury to agree to the pig outgoers scheme now. That may not have been possible without the current crisis. Nevertheless, we must remember what the scheme was designed for. It does not help much in these circumstances. As the Minister knows—it may be one of the reasons why he has been able to accelerate the scheme—the take-up has not been great, so not much money has been involved. Therefore, although both those initiatives are helpful, more may need to be done.
As a former Chief Secretary as well as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I can see the hand of the Treasury in the two announcements that have been made. In both cases, the schemes are very limited: the costs are ring-fenced. There has been great pressure for one of them already; the other is simply an acceleration of a scheme.
I shall make a plea to the Minister—I hope that I am strengthening his hand. In his statement on Monday, he kept saying in relation to any proposals for consequential loss that there was no precedent for such schemes. He is right. I understand the problem for other industries, such as the road haulage industry, but I am talking only about consequential losses for the agriculture industry and farmers.
My response to the point that there is no precedent is that we are now in an unprecedented situation. When the last outbreak occurred in 1967, the industry was not on its knees, so it was able to recover quite quickly. The income position was wholly different. The industry had the resources to recover and the scale of the outbreak turned out to be nothing like what appears to be the scale of the current outbreak. It was confined to three counties, or certainly to two areas. It was not England and Wales wide, as, unhappily, this one is. The scale of the current outbreak appears to be much bigger, but the industry is in a much weaker position. That is the big difference.
Today, as the Minister fully acknowledges, after four extremely difficult years for the farming community, every sector of the industry has been rocked back on its heels in a way that I have never seen during my parliamentary lifetime—indeed, during my lifetime because I cannot remember the 1930s. As we know, incomes are heavily down and cash flow is much affected.


Cash flow for many sectors, such as the pig industry, has been awful for some considerable time. Many people in the industry are now eating into their capital, if they have capital, and others have borrowed heavily. Thus the industry's finances are much worse than in 1967. That is an important point in relation to precedent.
I am glad that the Minister is keeping an open mind on the matter, as he has said. I hope that he is willing to go to the Treasury again for further support for the agriculture industry alone if the problem continues for much longer.

Mr. Drew: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there are difficulties with the precedent argument. I make no apology for returning to the case of bovine TB. Although foot and mouth is on a different scale in that it is a national problem, some of us have had to live with the threat of bovine TB, which also results in the closure of units and a lot of cost. I am sure he agrees that it would be dangerous to set precedents.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made the point that this looks like an unprecedented situation. It will obviously depend how long the disease continues, but my understanding is that, with the problems of animals stocking up on farms, the cost of feeding and the loss of value when farmers sell, the total cost could amount to £150 million a month. That is the latest assessment that I have been given. I am sure that it is a very rough assessment at this stage, but it puts into context the relief given on the agrimonetary payments. I realise the difficulties of working out a scheme and I know all the problems of going to Brussels, but if this continues, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at the matter again.
Another reason why this crisis is different from 1967 is that there is a heavy surplus in the Government's finances. Again, I speak as a former Chief Secretary. The contingency fund is intended for exactly this type of situation. Unlike many schemes and programmes that the Minister is sometimes urged to take up, it is a one-off crisis that would not be repeated in later years. Therefore, in that context, from the Treasury's point of view, it is not a bother.
The contingency fund is intended for exactly that type of purpose. I do not want to raise a politically contentious issue, but most people in the country would regard some use of the fund—even surpluses beyond the fund, if that were necessary—for that purpose as much more worth while than bailing out the dome. The cost of such a scheme, payable in one year only, would be small in relation to the securing of an industry and home supplies.
I with to stress the position in relation to the pig industry. The Minister has been right in everything that he has said. The pig industry has not had many EU support schemes. We know all the issues in relation to the pig industry, which, after classical swine fever, is in a serious position. Most pig farmers simply do not have the resources to cope with a long continuation of the present outbreak, particularly as they have now over-borrowed.

Mr. Gill: Before my right hon. Friend moves off the point, I wonder why he thinks that the consequential losses only of farmers should be covered. Why would he

not include hauliers and other people downstream from the farming industry, who have undoubtedly been seriously affected?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not done so because I have not been able to assess the position of those industries. I am aware of the position of many farmers and of the pig industry. I am not sufficiently familiar with the highly specialised road haulage industry, but there are other sources of income for road hauliers. I wish to confine myself simply to that sector. If the Minister succeeds, if it is necessary, in getting further schemes from the Treasury, it will be important that the case is well argued and well confined, so that it does not create other precedents. I realise that such a scheme would be considered by the European Commission as a state aid. However, I should have thought—the Minister seemed to imply it in describing the reaction that he received on Monday—that, given that it is vital to contain the problem Europe-wide, he would swiftly be given approval for a compensation scheme.
At Prime Minister's questions today, the Prime Minister described the farming industry—as so many of us have done over the years—as the custodians of the countryside. That role is another very important element in the issue. We have to ensure that the industry has the resources that it needs to come out of this crisis so that it can fulfil that function.
The other issue that I wanted to raise is that of imports. I have just been reading a book on globalisation, the foreword to which is entitled "The World Began Ten Years Ago". More than 10 years ago, as Agriculture Minister and as Secretary of State for Education, I was making speeches at out the speed of technical change around the world, globalisation and heaven knows what else. It is therefore interesting that one of the leading commentators on globalisation should be saying that the world began 10 years ago. Nevertheless, his comments on so many of the industries on which he focuses—such as the financial sector, but also the agriculture industry—reinforce the Minister's brief comments on world trade and technical change, and illustrate the fact that we are now operating in a hugely different world from that in which so many of of our original schemes were created.
Not the least of those changes has been the way in which supermarkets operate in formulating new trade relationships. It has to be said, however, that the main beneficiary of that process has been not industry, but consumers. As we are learning now, there may well be a price to pay for that.
The point that I want to stress to the Minister—I am sure from his comments that he is already very well apprised of it—is that both the outbreak of classical swine fever, which could h the been started by a ham sandwich imported from goodness knows where, and the current outbreak facing us, which, as he rightly said, must have come from overseas as we have been free of it for so long, demonstrate how, unless worldwide controls are formulated to regulate the current world situation, those controls can pose enormous damage to our own industry.
I therefore fully support the Minister in his view—I understand that Sir John Krebs would take precisely the same view—that we have to double our confidence in international and Government controls; re-examine our systems, and the controls and the resources that we have


to apply them; and examine the origins of products and the controls that apply in third countries. As the current outbreak demonstrates, even one tiny lapse can cause a very serious crisis.
Although we still do not know the source of the disease, I presume that it originated from something brought in from overseas. I therefore believe that that re-examination should apply to controls not only in the food chain itself, but at ports and airports. It is right to re-examine those controls in order to discover the lessons to be learned.
Ever since the outbreak of classical swine fever, I have been reflecting on concerns about the new arrangements that we have made for the right to roam. Various controls are being implemented now to deal with the current crisis, but no controls were in place when someone perhaps threw a sandwich over a fence and the classical swine fever outbreak began. There are big issues to be addressed, but I know that, once the Minister has dealt with the immediate crisis, he will a dress them. He has our full support in every measure that he is taking now.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I represent a farming constituency that is well known not only for its dairy and new potatoes but for its beef and sheep, and my constituents are extremely concerned about last week's announcements. However, from my discussions with local farming unions, I know that they fully support all the action that my right hon. Friend has taken so far. The priority for my constituents and the farming unions is that the disease is contained and eradicated. I should like to focus on hose two issues.
Some right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the availability of disinfectant. It seems clear from responses earlier today that the problem with disinfectant is not production, but distribution. I hope that, within the next few days, arrangements will be made so that the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom—particularly Wales, and especially west Wales, so that I can give a good message to my farmers and industry—have access to that vital product. We need it to take the action necessary to ensure containment.
I am very grateful that the National Assembly for Wales has reacted so quickly to the order on footpaths. Orders have been passed in Wales to ensure that countryside access is limited.
The day before my right hon. Friend implemented the restriction of movement order, I attended the launch of a Greenways scheme, which is a way of encouraging tourists to visit the coastal and rural parts of my constituency by linking footpaths with local railway stations. We took a walk from the local railway station to a local carpark, where we opened a footpath for wheelchair users. It is ironic that, the following day, I issued a press release urging my right hon. Friend and everyone else who uses the countryside not to come to the countryside for fear of spreading foot and mouth.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is essential that anyone who breaches the orders is prosecuted. As we know, the problem is that the disease is so easily spread. Irresponsible people who wander with their dogs or family through the countryside really are acting most irresponsibly.
Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of my farmers, who said that, unfortunately, sometimes not only the public but farmers act irresponsibly. Straying stock is

a real issue. Having checked with my local county council, which is enforcing the movement restriction order, I understand that under article 35 of the order farmers who fail to contain their stock can be prosecuted. We have to get that message out very clearly. I was also told yesterday that a neighbouring farmer had collected 50 sheep that had strayed from another farm. That may seem unbelievable, but it is true. We have to repeat the message to farmers that they have clear responsibilities to contain their stock.
The great problem is that the outbreak has occurred when the industry is already having an awful time because of the collapse in farm prices and farm incomes. Therefore, like the farming unions in Wales, I hope that by Friday my right hon. Friend will be able to announce a licensed slaughter scheme, which would at least allow an income stream for farmers and related industries such as the haulage trade. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the absolute priority must be finding ways of ensuring that the disease does not spread. I think that farmers would understand it if a little more time were taken and a belt-and-braces scheme were developed to ensure that a licensed slaughter scheme allowed no chance whatsoever of the disease spreading.
When the scheme starts to operate, it might confirm what some of us already believe. For whatever reason—perhaps simply because the market sometimes operates peculiarly—abattoirs, certainly in Wales, tend to be located far from the main sources of production. Maps showing how stock has travelled between Northumberland, Essex and Devon appear to suggest that the market has not got right the location of abattoirs around the UK. Perhaps we should be more prescriptive in encouraging abattoirs to be set up closer to areas of production.
The benefits are obvious—jobs would be brought to areas where they are much needed, and the number of animals being transported around the UK would be radically reduced. The risk of disease travelling large distances would also be reduced.
I learned today that supermarkets are clamouring for the establishment of a licensed slaughtering scheme because their customers are demanding British product. That is good news, as it appears that people have not lost confidence in the British product, as many farmers had feared. Customers are asking supermarkets when British product that has run out will reappear on the shelves. It looks likely that we can restore sales of British meat in supermarkets in the future. We must maintain that confidence, however: losing it, as happened after the BSE outbreak, would cause the industry to be plunged into yet another crisis.
I spoke to Malcolm Thomas, the director of NFU Cymru, before the debate, and he asked that a specific issue be dealt with. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other hon. Members have touched on the matter, which has to do with the flexibility of animal movements, especially between holdings.
In my constituency, the Castlemartin range is a large tank range, where thousands of head of sheep off the Preseli hills overwinter. The dozen different owners of those sheep are desperate to move them back to the hills, and the matter is clearly a major animal welfare issue. Farmers want to know whether a common-sense


arrangement could be made to tackle problems such as that, while at the same time ensuring that the disease does not travel.
Another matter raised by Malcolm Thomas had to do with a farmer to the north of my constituency who has 800 store lambs in a large field that is virtually bare. The farmer has four fields full of grass less than a mile away, but he cannot move the 800 store lambs at the moment. I am sure that a sensible, common-sense arrangement can be devised to deal with such problems.

Mr. Livsey: Similar problems have arisen in my constituency. Many sheep farmers would expect the last day of February to be the normal day for moving tank sheep. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that some sort of special licence system should be established in such circumstances?

Mr. Ainger: I am sure that there is some way to achieve that, and I saw my right hon. Friend the Minister nod. It is imperative that we do so in the next few days. Genuine animal welfare issues are involved, especially in relation to the 800 sheep that I have mentioned. It has been suggested that sheep should be introduced to silage, but they do not like it and do not eat it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to come up with the practical arrangement that we need.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, I hope that she will say when agrimonetary compensation will be paid. I recognise that claims are not due to be registered for the European element until 30 April, but farmers will clearly be facing a severe cashflow problem, regardless of what happens over the next few weeks. I hope that the agrimonetary compensation will be distributed as quickly as possible.
I was first elected to the House in 1992, and the difficulty of distributing money to farmers in Wales existed then. Significant investment has since been made in computer technology to resolve the problem, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) knows. However, if the Government are prepared to get money to farmers as quickly as possible, it would be ironic if they were to be let down by the mechanism that they would have to use. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take up the issue with Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs, to ensure that available money is paid as quickly as possible.
I dealt with one of the largest compensation claims ever dealt with by a constituency Member of Parliament. The claim arose when the Sea Empress ran aground. I listened to the argument presented by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about precedent, who said that some people should be targeted, and that others should not. The problem is difficult and complex. In the Sea Empress case, the international oil pollution compensation fund drew red lines on a map, saying that people outside those lines were not affected.
If we go down the road of compensation for consequential loss, I fear that a similar problem will be encountered. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister is keeping open the possibility of consequential loss compensation, but he will have to grapple with the problem that I have set out: if the principle is accepted,

where does one draw the line? The problem is hugely difficult. The Sea Empress claim amounted to more than £50 million, and I know how hard it is to decide whether a hotel 20 miles from the coast suffered the same losses as did a hotel five miles from the coast.
I have one question that I think the whole industry will have to examine. We seem to expect the public purse to be the first call when it comes to compensation for losses suffered when disaster strikes. Should not we look to the industry and say, "Isn't it about time you started looking after your own? Shouldn't you set up a compensation fund along the lines of the one run by the oil industry?" The international oil pollution compensation fund is now able to pay out up to £120 million on a one-off spill. Should not the farm industry look at establishing a similar fund?
Clearly, premiums would have to be paid, and so on, but I believe such a fund to be an idea for the future. The time will come when a serious situation arises and the Government of the day may not have been as prudent as this one. The necessary resources may not be available, as they are today. Perhaps the industry should start thinking about how it can look after itself.
Finally, my right hon. Friend has handled this debate superbly. I hope that in the next few weeks we will see the containment of this horrendous disease and its eradication. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made so far.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I disagree with the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) about the urgency of moving ewes off the hills to in-bye land to lamb. All farmers will see that as less of a Priority than preventing the spread of the disease. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would, I think, increase the risk to an unacceptable level. That should come second to the eradication of the disease.
This has been a very useful debate. I should like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the victims of today' s train crash between the Newcastle and London trains. The people of Northumberland and the north-east must be wondering what they have done to deserve this. They have had the outbreak of foot and mouth diseaste—which, sadly, started in my constituency—and to lay there has been the tragedy of the train crash. They have probably also had some of the worst snowstorms since 1962, and many houses are without power. They have had a hard time, and I sympathise with the I problems that the outbreak is causing.
Foot and mouth lisease is a personal tragedy. The Williamsons in my constituency, a well-respected Northumbrian farming family, were innocent victims of the outbreak; their stock was simply infected because they were near the source of the outbreak. They had a renowned herd of pedigree beef Limousin. To see those animals being lifted with a JCB and dropped on a pile to be incinerated by the side of the A69 was heart breaking. I am sure that the Williamsons will not mind my saying that MAFF officials have, in these difficult circumstances, treated them with extreme kindness and courtesy and could not have been more helpful. That should go on the record.
Northumberland has two exclusion zones. The county council is struggling with closing footpaths. Some confusion has arisen. I have heard that Kent county


council has simply imposed a blanket ban, but Northumberland county council believes that it will have to put up notices on every right of way to close them. In a county the size of Northumberland, that will be extremely difficult. Local authorities might need further guidance about how they should close rights of way, but it is extremely important that they do so as urgently as possible.
Another problem is that the county has only five animal health inspectors. Once animal health inspectors go to a farm where the disease is confirmed, they are categorised as "dirty" in the trade, and cannot visit another farm for a considerable period. Effectively, they are no longer very much use in this outbreak.
The outbreak has led to schools closing. Some teaching staff live on farms, and a lot of children who live on farms are not attending school. The outbreak has had a profound effect on our lives. If it were not for the snow, I suspect that it would also have a profound effect on tourism. As was mentioned earlier, tourism is an important economic factor in the constituency, and that will be seriously damaged if the outbreak continues.
Burnside farm has been said to be the source of the outbreak, but that is somewhat inaccurate. Burnside farm was split up a long time ago, and all we are talking about is a pig unit consisting of a number of sheds. I know that the Minister and his officials will inquire into the cause of this, but it seems rather a strange story. At this stage, our priority must be to control the disease, but it was something of a surprise to local people to learn that farmers at the farm that is said to be the source of the outbreak had been evicted from previous premises in south Tyneside—East Boldon—in 1995 after a long and protracted legal action by the local authority and English Partnerships, which had some ownership in the land. Once the two brothers had left, English Partnerships and the council were faced with a bill approaching £100,000 to clear up the premises. Shortly afterwards, the brothers popped up again in Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland, with a licence to go back into the pig-fattening business.
The premises were visited on a number of occasions by trading standards officers and MAFF experts. No disease was found, but I believe that the way in which the farm was being kept was criticised Neighbours had complained regularly about conditions in the sheds, and I hope that in the fulness of time there will be a full explanation. It was obvious that the farm was poorly kept.
Finding the source of the outbreak is vital. There was a rumour that swill had come to the farm from Newcastle airport, but that has been hotly denied by the airport. I am happy to put the record straight. However, there was, and is, an extensive collection of swill to that farm and the neighbouring farm, which has also been affected by the disease. It is important to find out how the infected meat got into the swill chain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) spoke about globalisation. That is central to the control of disease. With the way in which the world works now, it will be virtually impossible to stop some diseases moving around the world unless there is strict control of the sources of production. In Europe, for instance, we now eat more Brazil an chicken meat than ever before. Brazil is making great efforts to export chicken meat to Europe. It is vital that the way in which chickens are produced in Brazil meets European

standards. I believe that even if we put a cordon round a country to check the food that it imports, the volume of food imported into this country makes it virtually impossible to make a check at the point of entry meaningful. Therefore, we have to go to the source of the product. That is a penalty of the global economy, but we must remember that the global economy is also an advantage to us and that our farmers benefit from it.
There has been some talk about abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is an expert on the subject, and he may wish to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a misconception about abattoirs and their purpose, which Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned.
The problem is that abattoirs these days are very large, multi-million pound, highly technical businesses. Wanting to go back to small abattoirs is like closing the supermarkets and opening the corner shops all day. A big, modern, state-of-the-art abattoir has to work 364 or 365 days a year. Lambs in the south-west reach maturity earlier because of the better climate. However, when the supply of lambs runs out, an abattoir cannot simply shut down and pay off all its staff—it has to bring in lambs from further and further afield, which is why animals have to be transported. Nothing that we do will change that. We cannot turn back the clock. Clearly, some small abattoirs are important, but the idea that we can have local abattoirs around the country to shorten journey times is economic nonsense.

Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. Does he agree that the habit or practice of taking animals from the north to the south of England has been going on for years?

Mr. Atkinson: That is true. There has undoubtedly been a change since 1967, as we can see from the map of the outbreak, and there is now much more movement. Abattoirs are not only big businesses; some of them are also specialised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow may talk about the specialised abattoir in his constituency. Such specialisation is why animals are transported around the country. There is little that we can do to change that.
I shall touch briefly on the problems faced in the supply chain—for the hauliers, the auction marts and others involved in the whole process. Like all of us, I am pleased that the Minister is considering the movement of animals under licence. However, I suspect that it will be some time before that begins to solve the problems. I fear that the outbreak will be worse than we anticipated—its growth over the past 24 hours suggests that it is serious.
If the Minister is unable to license movement directly to abattoirs, I urge him to consider some assistance for the supply chain. There are at least two specialist livestock transporters in my constituency—they do nothing else. They have no work at present. They can lay off drivers and staff, but they cannot stop the financial charges on their business. They will experience great difficulty. When the crisis is over, it will be no good if such companies no longer exist.
The movement of stock directly from farm to abattoir raises the question of how to determine the price to be paid. If there is no auction mart, how can the price be assessed? That must be considered when the system is set up.
Insurance was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire. Today, a farmer in my constituency told me that his foot and mouth insurance runs out at midnight. This morning, the insurance company notified him that it would not renew his insurance—helpful as always. I hope that the farmer is contacting NFU Mutual, which might reinsure him.
Farming is in a crisis. In previous outbreaks of disease, the farming industry could fall back on its own resources to repair some of the damage, but this time the industry is so low—so broke—that it simply cannot sustain further large financial losses if the outbreak continues.
We are all grateful to the Minister and to his staff for what they are doing to try to contain the outbreak. Farmers in Northumberland, in the firing line, will also appreciate that.

Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate, although I am sure that none of us would have wanted these events to occur. I welcome the Opposition motion. Earlier in the week, there was a slight spat as to whether it was right to hold the debate now and to haul Ministers back from what they were doing. However, the House is always at its best when faced with a great crisis; we can all come together. In his inimitable way, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has managed to disarm many of the critics who might have tried to pull the rug from under him. I am sure that we all agree that he has done a good job in putting people's minds at rest.
We cannot underestimate the gravity of the situation however. I do not have a specific constituency interest at present—I am extremely grateful that one of the first notifications of a possible outbreak, at Woodchester park in my constituency, turned out to be negative. Obviously, people in the constituencies of other hon. Members have not been so fortunate.
One of the difficulties is that although it is relatively easy to determine that there is an outbreak of the disease on a particular farm or holding, it takes considerably longer to confirm that a holding does not have the disease. There is an incubation period before the animals show signs of the disease and that is a dreadful waiting time for people on the holding or on surrounding farms. That is not, of course, to underestimate the impact on those who actually have to deal with the disease.
The outbreak is national. It seems to be getting worse day by day, although we are looking forward to an upturn. However, we must place animal health and animal welfare in context—I am not sure where we draw the line between the two, but veterinary science defines them separately. Within a relatively short period, this country—indeed, our continent and the world—has seen a number of animal diseases. There was the disaster of BSE and the continuing problems of bovine tuberculosis—I make no apology for mentioning them, although they are on a different scale. In my part of the world, we have been learning to live with bovine TB for some time—it is getting worse and we must find solutions. I shall say more about that later in my speech. In parts of the country, there have been outbreaks of classical swine fever. Now, there is foot and mouth disease.
Anyone who pretends that this outbreak is a one-off event that has come completely out of the blue should look back and think harder about what is happening in animal farming. If we do not learn from that, our successors will rue the day. There is evidence that such outbreaks are becoming more complicated; they are not necessarily longer lasting, but they seem to affect more animals more quickly. That causes us even more concern.
On the plus side. I join in the plaudits to my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is clear from objective measurement of such matters that the Labour Administration have learned from some of the mistakes of the past. By that, I do not mean the previous Conservative Administration—I do not want to make party political points. Since the last serious outbreak—BSE—I am pleased that command and control structures have been quickly put in place Although a few people thought that some of the measures were rather draconian and could have been seen to be non-libertarian—telling people not to go to the country side is about as illiberal as we could imagine—nevertheless the speed with which the Administration have acted was right. That has been welcomed not only by the industry, but by all those who have an interest in the countryside.
I am pleased about the drawing down of the agrimonetary compensation; arguably, it is a coincidence, but it could not have come at a better time. I very much support that, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise from comments on both sides of the House that this may not be the end of the story on the compensation that will be needed.
It is pleasing to see the work of the state veterinary service. Some of its have been critical of MAFF's operation in practice, but the SVS has performed at the highest possible standard. It has links with the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency. I make a special plea that we should remember all those who work at the local government end—trading standards or environmental health officers. Those people are sometimes forgotten, but they are very much at the forefront because they have to make the initial visits and give clear recommendations. They always tell me that they are overworked and under-resourced. They tend to see themselves as the Cinderella services in local government. Perhaps we need to examine their work and ensure that they are properly resourced, because they have to deal with a legacy of different issues—which they do with great professionalism. We must never take those people for granted.
The loss of income will have an immediate impact, but we must not try to ignore the on-going problems. The loss of income arises from the inability to sell animals, but inevitably regulations will be involved. The Select Committee on Agriculture is considering the forms used in the integrated control and administration system, and there is a general view that we need to deal with that matter with more of a soft touch. We need to consider how regulation has been geared up post-BSE.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), in the debate on the Phillips report, which took place just before last week's recess, we considered not necessarily less but better regulation. The belief that cutting out all regulation is the answer to all the farm industry's problems would cost us dear. There is an underlying problem that leads to a loss of confidence, and it is why people leave the industry. That is


inevitable—people leave, as well as enter, any industry. Not many people want to enter agriculture, for obvious reasons, but we must find out who is leaving, and we always need to invest in younger people so that we can produce food for tomorrow as well as for today.
I shall not go over the ground that other hon. Members have covered in dealing with the food chain. However, we must not fail to realise that we are talking not just about an immediate impact on the raw commodity—the animals—but about the fact that we are currently incapable of exporting them. That will soon affect the whole food processing industry and will have an enormous impact on the United Kingdom.
We may have an agricultural trade deficit because we have always imported more agricultural products than we have exported, even though we could I be self-sufficient, as hon. Members know—but that has been made up for by the fact that we are a major exporter of all manner of different foodstuffs. Of course, those foodstuffs will be questioned in other parts of the world. We must be very careful not to talk up that problem, but we must be realistic. The loss of those export markets needs to be carefully scrutinised and we must do all we can to deal with the disease as quickly as possible to ensure that we restore confidence in those markets All that is known about and understood.
I wish to dwell on some other issues for a few moments, some of which hon. Members have already mentioned. The Select Committee has devoted a great deal of its time to considering the relevance of the globalisation of the food chain. That has been mentioned by Opposition and Labour Members both today and in questions on Monday's statement. I have a clear view that although globalisation may appear inevitable to some people, it would be a disservice if we did not question it. Even if no one else has had reason to question globalisation, there is much evidence that consumers have begun to look carefully at what they buy. They are asking where their food comes from—of course, labelling is relevant—and whether they can buy it locally. They want to know which farm it came from. They want to know about the attractions of organic food, even though it is not necessarily local.
All those matters are important and link with the key food chain issue—the relationship between science and the factors that are always found to be part of the communality of causation. Again, hon. Members have told us what they believe to be the cause. I am not sure that we know the cause; we certainly do not necessarily know who caused the problems. However, there is an interface between science, on which we rely so much to solve our problems, and the difficulties that we seem to cause ourselves, given the number of diseases that develop and how we deal with them.
Vaccination has been mentioned. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Minister has ruled out vaccination with every good reason, as most hon. Members would rightly say, because vaccination would take away our status and would seem to be nothing more than a short-term expedient. A comparison can be made with bovine TB. Those who do not like the work undertaken to find the cause and method of transmission

of bovine TB call for vaccination. There are difficulties in trying to be consistent in how we deal with animal disease.

Mr. Gill: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that we may have to reconsider vaccination? It is all very well to talk about having a high health status in this country, given that we live on an island. We could keep disease out of these islands if we did not import from other parts of the world. However, we are importing and there is perhaps a great political imperative to continue to do so. Perhaps there is a contradiction in thinking that we can retain the total health integrity of our own animals in this country, while importing products from all over the world. Has it occurred to him that we may have to revisit that territory?

Mr. Drew: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not sure whether he makes an anti-European or an anti-world point, but I would approach the issue from the other direction. We should begin to question some of the global food chains. Instead of using vaccination to make animals more immune to those threats, we should try to remove the threats. I am not in favour of a little Englander approach, by which we eat what we produce. Clearly, that could not be contemplated; it is not what most people would want. However, we must revisit some parts of the food chain and perhaps get more balance back into it. That would encourage localisation, which I have always advocated. I shall not get into the argument about abattoirs. The hon. Gentleman has far more experience and knowledge of such matters than I have. However, we need to address those issues seriously.
Science has brought us successes such as traceability, which has allowed us to check most animals origins. However, we must check what we feed to our animals, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point during the investigation. Most people would argue—perhaps with limited knowledge—that risks have been taken with animal feed and that we should carefully consider the causes of those risks.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some questions about some matters that have already been mentioned, and he might like to investigate and consider their wider implications.
Earlier, hon. Members raised the issue of common land. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) attended a briefing by those who implement the policy; it highlighted the problems of areas such as the Forest of Dean, where sheep graze openly. It would be nice to think that we could contain the animals, but the sheep in the Forest of Dean visit people's gardens as well as the more open areas. Therefore, we need clarity on how we should deal with those animals, because they and their contact with human beings could spread the disease. The issue affects me because of the common land in my constituency.
When I intervened on the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I asked how we could assist farmers markets and farm shops. The people whose main business is to supply those outlets face a particular difficulty at the moment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to offer them clear advice. At present, it is not to hold the markets and not to open the shops, but the time will come when people's livelihoods will be affected not just because of their inability to farm, but because of their inability to attend the markets.
We are always told that one of the reasons we cannot offer compensation in the form that some of us might like is that it would fall foul of the state aid rules. At this time of crisis, it would be helpful to know that we could go to the European Union for a dispensation on any help that might be forthcoming.
Regaining access to markets after the crisis is another issue. We must have a systematic approach to that, but it will not be easy. When the disease is eradicated—let us hope that that is soon—there will be a period in which Europe and the rest of the world will want reassurance that we are clear of foot and mouth disease. Regaining access to international markets is an issue, because there is a problem not only with the raw commodity—the animals—but with all the other products that we need to sell.
Whatever our views on the European Union, we must all recognise the importance of the negotiations in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will engage. We need the EU' s support at this time. Although we may criticise it on how aspects of policy worked out in the past, we now need to pull together with our partners. I pay tribute to the sterling work that my right hon. Friend has done not just in this country, but in the discussions in Europe. The most important thing is to eradicate the disease, but we need to keep our markets open so that we can access them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He made a very interesting speech that was based on his great knowledge. His contributions to the debate and his media appearances have added to our understanding of the problem.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: it has been exemplary. Despite the pressure that he has been under, it has been noticeable that he has answered interventions thoroughly. Even though I was critical of some of his remarks on Monday, I have nothing but praise for his conduct and performance today.
I am sorry to learn that a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease has been found in Essex. Chelmsford is very close to the abattoir in my constituency where the disease was found. The sight of the smoke that rose over my constituency from a great cauldron on Monday was depressing; I am sure that it will remain with me for a long time. I suspect that I have had a foretaste of what other Members may see. People's livelihoods for many years were literally burned before their eyes.
The Minister was right on Monday to express sympathy for the farmers and abattoirs involved. He said:
They deserve sympathy and support, not blame. The best thing that the Government can do is to eliminate foot and mouth disease and help return the industry to normal trading as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 604.]
Colleagues in the House have asked me about the abattoir in my constituency. In particular, they are surprised at the enormous distances that animals travel on their way to Brentwood. Inappropriate conclusions have been drawn from that. It is sad that a number of small abattoirs have disappeared, but it is wrong to draw the conclusion that Cheale Meats is responsible for the

decline in the number of small abattoirs and the fact that animals have to travel long distances. Cheale Meats is a specialist abattoir that is of enormous strategic importance to the pig industry. More than half the pig carcases exported from the United Kingdom come from Cheale Meats. Without the abattoir and its facilities, the number of live exports would increase dramatically, so it is critical that it gets back into operation as soon as possible.
Ironically, an application to extend the abattoir's facilities for the storage of stock has been before Brentwood council. Had those facilities already been in existence, the transfer of the disease to Old English farm probably would not have occurred. Matters were in hand to deal with the possible threat of foot and mouth disease even before the outbreak. If it were not for the efficiency of the abattoir, the current outbreak of the disease probably would not have been detected as quickly as it was.
Rumours have been flying around about the nature of the business of Cheale Meats. I am grateful to my Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who told me about an anonymous telephone call to his office today suggesting that there, was a financial link between the abattoir in Brentwood and the firm in Heddon-on-the-Wall in his constituency—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Members should please keep their voices down when an hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Pickles: The telephone call suggested that there was a financial link between the abattoir and the pig farm in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have checked that allegation, and I am pleased to say that there is no financial connection—either direct or indirect—between the two. I have spoken to the directors of Cheale Meats, who have given me that unqualified assurance. We have many problems to with in the current outbreak and people—especially those who do not have the courage to make themselves known—spreading malicious falsehoods does not help us to do that. I am happy to put the record straight on that particular point.
It is not easy to telephone a farmer whose stock is being destroyed. However at the weekend I called my constituent, Mr. Gemill, and was struck by the quiet dignity with which ho took the news of the destruction of his life's work. The valuers are examining his stock and he will receive compensation, but he still has to go through the process of replacing those animals in six months' time. Many hon. Members will have to make similar calls, and they, too, will not enjoy them.
Is this a convent time for me to stop speaking, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman finishes, we will commence the statement. [Interruption.] Does he detect a hint?

Mr. Pickles: I am as good as the advice that I am given. I thank the Whips Office for telling me that I should sit down at 7 pm, which I am happy to do, and then continue after the statement. I do not want to keep


the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions waiting, because the subject of his statement is important.

Mr. Speaker: Once the hon. Gentleman finishes, he cannot be called again.

Mr. Pickles: That is all right.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Selby Rail Crash

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the tragic accident at Selby at about 6.20 this morning. I am grateful to the House, in particular to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for concluding his speech and to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to speak at this later time, which allowed me to visit the scene and report back to the House.
The latest casualty figure is 13 killed. At this time we believe that that includes two train drivers. There are 75 other casualties, 10 of whom are in a serious or critical condition. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the injured and to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in this tragic and horrific accident.
When I visited the scene, I again saw for myself the tremendous efforts of our emergency services and the many agencies that were involved in dealing with the accident. As always, they showed true professionalism, courage and efficiency in, yet again, the most difficult circumstances.
The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the North Yorkshire police, working in conjunction with the British Transport police and other forces, the local fire brigades and ambulance services, the Royal Air Force air sea rescue helicopters, which attended the scene, and the local hospitals that treated the injured. The Minister for Public Health, is visiting hospitals this evening and will thank hospital staff for their work. I also want to pay tribute to the way in which members of the local community responded so quickly to provide help and comfort to the passengers who were involved in the accident.
Let me turn to the facts of the tragedy in so far as they are known. At approximately 6.20 this morning, a Land Rover was travelling west along the M62 motorway, pulling a trailer that was carrying another car. It left the motorway as it approached a bridge that crosses the east coast main line. The bridge is protected by crash barriers, but the vehicle left the road some 30 m before the beginning of the crash barrier. It then travelled along and down the embankment, behind the safety barrier, before falling down the railway cutting and on to the track. In all, on present information, it is estimated that the vehicle travelled more than 100 m from leaving the main carriageway before reaching the railway line.
The driver got out of the vehicle and phoned the North Yorkshire police. As he was speaking to them, the 4.45 am Great North Eastern Railway Newcastle to London train, carrying more than 100 passengers, collided with the vehicle on the track. The passenger train left the rails as a result of the collision, but remained upright. Almost immediately, it collided with the oncoming freight train. The time between the emergency call and the first collision was 40 seconds, and the two trains crashed within seconds of that.
It is essential that this appalling tragedy is subject to the fullest investigation. A number of agencies are involved—the Health and Safety Executive, its railway


inspectorate, British Transport police, North Yorkshire police and the Highways Agency. All of them will conduct their own investigations. Therefore, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to provide me with an interim report within the next few days. I shall then make a decision on what further steps may be appropriate. I shall ensure that report is made public.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I know that he shares our view that it was appropriate to defer today's debate on other transport issues.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House when he expresses shock and sympathy for the victims and their families. We join him in sending our condolences to the injured and bereaved. We also join him in paying tribute to the emergency services. The police and the helicopter, ambulance and fire crews distinguished themselves in harrowing circumstances and appalling weather conditions. Doctors, nurses and other national health service staff have been unstinting in their devotion to the injured. We thank not only the public services involved, but—as he did—the villagers of Great Heck, who were first on the scene.
The victims and their families are uppermost in our minds. At this early stage, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any doubt that the casualty figures that he gave are the final totals? Have all the relatives of the dead been contacted?
Faced with yet more scenes of smashed rail carriages on our television screens, and as we hear yet more harrowing first-hand accounts of a disaster, it is hard to know how to express what everyone feels, but nothing should stand in the way of our determination to rebuild confidence in the safety of the railway. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that it is too early to draw conclusions from the accident, and I welcome his call for an early interim report from the HSE.
Everyone accepts that accidents happen. However, we need a full and comprehensive assessment before we can judge whether this was an appalling but freak tragedy, or whether the risk of a similar accident recurring is unacceptably high. The accident follows the tragedies of Hatfield and Paddington. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to resist adding to the burden of the Cullen inquiry into those accidents, so that its findings are not delayed further. However, has he considered reviewing the conclusions of the 1987 working party, which examined the risks associated with road/rail crashes at bridges? Will he also consider creating a successor group?
I assure the right hon. Gentleman of our support for the Cullen inquiry recommendations to be implemented as quickly as possible and our support for his response to today's events. Will he join me in expressing support to those people who work on our railways? This accident is another terrible blow for a troubled and unhappy industry that has been desperately trying to restore its self-confidence and services to passengers. For GNER staff, this is the second tragedy in the space of a few months. Does he agree that a safe and reliable railway depends on all those people who have been striving, and will continue to strive, to achieve that objective? Does he also agree

that it is vital that we foster the confidence of the industry and those people who are working so hard to address its shortcomings?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am most grateful for his full support for the emergency services and their remarkable work, which they are still doing. I am not sure what the final casualty totals are, for obvious reasons. All those people who are known to be alive have been removed from the crash site. When we begin to lift the two trains that collided—one was doing about 125 mph and- the other was doing 40 mph—we are not quite sure what we will find. Therefore, I cannot give more accurate information at the moment. Certainly those who were involved have been removed to hotels by GNER and are receiving advice and help in those difficult circumstances. I am not sure whether all the relatives have been informed, but the great majority have been, and that task continues. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman, an accurate answer, but I will write to him tomorrow. If I receive more information tonight, I will ensure that he gets it.
The hon. Gentleman's point about wanting a full investigation was well made, and he is right to suggest that we should not adopt the same procedure that we used for Hatfield, when information was passed on to the Cullen inquiry. We do not now want to delay the inquiry's conclusions, and I shall certainly keep that in mind when I receive the interim report from the HSE in the next few days. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman and the House informed on these matters.
Research commissioned by the Highways Agency is currently being conducted on collisions at bridges, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As soon as that investigation has been completed, I will make that information available.
The hon. Gentleman was right to conclude that we all want a safe railway system, and everyone strives to achieve that. We always need to be guided by the proper regulatory framework, and the question is whether that framework is correct. Lord Cullen is considering whether the management of our railway system and its safety should be improved, and we must await his report. As the hon. Gentleman said, we must remember that GNER crews were involved, and although we are waiting to find out exactly what happened, I believe at least two of them to be dead. They paid the final price in the most difficult circumstances. We should remember that it is often the workers who pay the price, along with the passengers, and that is why I particularly wanted to mention those two people.
The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will all strive to secure a safe railway system and that there will be a full investigation. I await the interim report to find out what I should do, but I will report back to him and the House as soon as possible. I appreciate the fact that following our conversations this morning about the difficulty of there being a transport debate today, the Opposition were responsive and agreed to join us in doing what was best so that I could report to the House.

Mr. John Grogan: This is the second time in recent weeks that my right hon. Friend has had to come to Selby in difficult circumstances. The first time, of course, was during the floods. As we sit here tonight on


this bleak Ash Wednesday, many of my constituents are gathering for a service in the local church. Will my right hon. Friend underline the fact that the people of Selby have once again shown great community spirit, resolve and resilience, as they did during the floods? I refer not only to those who were first on the scene this morning, in terrible circumstances, and who did what they could to help, but to those from voluntary organisations and local churches, particularly the vicar of 5,elby abbey and the vicar of Snape, who have been on the scene all day. Their contribution should be recognised and valued greatly.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for the area, knows only too well that the same people—the emergency services, voluntary organisations and ordinary members of the public—who were involved in this incident came forward to deal with the terrible floods. The House greatly admires the speed with which people come forward to help. It is a source of comfort in the most difficult circumstances that we can rely on those people who do a wonderful job. I recognise that with the floods and this collision, the people of Selby and the surrounding area have suffered grew, pressures on them, but one is always amazed by the resilience of people who, when there is a problem, get together and deal with it. That spirit shone through yet again in this tragedy.

Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and I join him and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in offering our condolences to the friends and relatives of those who tragically died and our best wishes to those who were injured in the accident. On behalf of the House, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the praise that he gave to the emergency services and the local people who so rapidly came to the aid of those injured in the tragedy.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister also for making it absolutely clear that the interim report will be made public as quickly as possible. Will he give us an assurance that the full report that will be published in due course will also be made public? Will he ask for consideration to be given in that report to the length of crash barriers on either side of bridges? As there has been confusion in the reporting of the incident, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as I believe he has done, that the Land Rover and trailer were the cause of the accident, and not, as some newspapers have reported, the vehicle that was on the trailer?
I am delighted above all by what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the people who work on the railways. He can be assured of our full support in all his work to try to achieve a safe, reliable railway.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Members on both sides of the House have offered support to the emergent y workers and the relatives who are suffering at this very moment because of this terrible tragedy.
I shall certainly make the interim report public. I am all for transparency and my general approach is to make reports public where possible. The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that although the site is not being investigated as a crime scene at the foment, I cannot give full details until the officials concerned have conducted their investigations and taken statements. I must await their report, but I am committed to making available as much information as possible.
The Transport Research Laboratory has been commissioned to consider the length of crash barriers. It has done some work, and it will now be asked to do more. When that information is published, it will be made available to the House. I hesitate to say exactly what happened, but the visual evidence of the state of the Land Rover and the trailer carrying the car makes it clear that the Land Rover was hit by the train and, judging by its front part, almost completely demolished. It would be unwise of me to enter into any other speculation at the moment—I shall await the report.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the whole railway community will be shocked and saddened by this latest incident? It appears to merit the description of "accident" more than the other tragedies that have occurred in our railway industry in the past year or so. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, from what we know of the circumstances, no railway safety device in the world could have prevented that accident from happening?
In view of the welcome remarks of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), would it be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to write to Mr. Christopher Garnett, the chief executive of GNER, to tell him that as far as regular rail travellers are concerned, he and his staff run a fine train operating company? This incident and the Hatfield crash are not the company's responsibility, and we ought to say so.

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the railway community will be shocked and saddened. The sequence of events is a remarkable set of coincidences: a car came off a motorway, travelled some distance on to the railway track and was then hit by a passenger train, which came off the track into the path of a freight train, all within seconds. As he said, it certainly seems as if that could be properly called an accident, but I must await the report.
I have talked to Mr. Garnett. Anyone who knows him will know that he certainly cares about the railway system and about GNER. He was very shocked by the incident, as he was by Hatfield, and he was on the scene making sure that everything possible was being done, including having passengers allocated to hotels and ensuring that counselling was available. It was easy to see in his face his shock and concern about the fact that there had been yet another railway tragedy. Considerations of what happened and who is to blame provide no comfort at these moments; one must deal with the circumstances. He was in the thick of it, and I am sure that the House was glad to see a man playing that part.

Mr. John Greenway: As one of North Yorkshire's Members, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for their tribute to the North Yorkshire emergency services. We do not have the strength of personnel that other parts of the country have, and the way in which they responded today was absolutely magnificent. This is arguably the worst tragedy that I can recall happening in our county in my 14 years in the House. Many of us have friends and constituents who use that train to travel to London at 6 o'clock every morning, and we are waiting desperately and anxiously for news of who, precisely, the victims are.
The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that at this juncture our thoughts are with the families of the victims and the injured victims. I endorse what he has said about the emergency services and the staff of GNER. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, the accident does not appear to be any fault of the railway. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to try to get the line reopened as quickly as possible. We do not want to suffer the great delays that occurred because of the Hatfield accident.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of warm support and for giving me the opportunity to thank the North Yorkshire police and the chief constable, who accompanied me when I visited the site of the accident. It is always difficult when politicians visit such sites, because we wonder whether we are getting in the way. However, it is necessary for a representative of the House to attend such sites and to report back. We have great hesitation about doing so, but I received tremendous co-operation from everyone involved, who wanted to say what was going on, and felt that Parliament needed to know. That is why I asked for the statement to be made later in the day.
A hotline has been opened by the company for relatives who may be concerned about anyone who was travelling on the train. No official information will be given about those who may have died until the relatives have been informed. That is the normal custom, and I think that it is what the House would expect.
Of course, we want to see the line reopened. It is the line that I use, and the same route. There was a speed restriction on the line after the Hatfield accident and the evidence of gauge corner cracking. Improvements were made and the speed restriction was removed only last week. A horrible thought is whether it would have been better if the restriction had still been in place, but it is one that really cannot be entertained. It is one of the terrible circumstances that surround the tragedy. However, the service had benefited from an improvement as a result of the lessons that we learned from the Hatfield accident. We were getting back to a normal service, and I think that the company was to launch a campaign next week to encourage people to return to the railways.
These are difficult and terrible circumstances. Everyone wants to see the line reopened as soon as possible, but obviously in a safe manner. Everything must be done that should be done to improve the line.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that he took, in conjunction with the Opposition, to ensure that we had an early and proper statement. I am aware that he has had the harrowing experience of visiting the site. I join him in his compliments to GNER and its executive director for the work that he has undertaken.
In replying to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), my right hon. Friend obviously could not say precisely when we shall see the line reopened. However, can he guess or make a guesstimate of when that might be? As the hon. Gentleman said, there have been great troubles on the line. It is our line, and we all want to see it get back to normal. That includes the

travelling public. Given the economic interests of the entire country, it is important that the line should be back in use as soon as possible.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I join him, in complimenting GNER, which is our local rail service. I cannot say with accuracy when the line will be open. When I have received the interim report, I may have a better idea of the extent of the damage. I have seen the state of the line. Wonderful efforts have been made by the maintenance people, who have been working extremely hard since the Hatfield accident, but this is a line to which they must return. I cannot give an accurate date for when that line will be reopened. However, as I have said, I shall be able to give further information when I have received the interim statement. I have no doubt that everyone involved would like to see the line reopened as soon as possible. I am sure that that is the wish of the House.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for both visiting the site today and reporting back to the House this evening. I join him in paying tribute to the emergency services. We especially remember those who lost their lives, those who have been bereaved and those who are seriously and critically injured.
GNER has had a terrible six months, but its standing locally is extremely high. The company is based at York. As the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), knows, as do others on both sides of the House who represent parts of York, the city revolves round the railway. Today, I received a letter from York's economic development department about the damage that was done to the community and local business with the loss of the normal full-speed service, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was reinstated only on Monday.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the extent to which weather conditions might have played a part in the accident I do not know whether the police were able to report or that today. Similarly, I do not know whether that will form part of his investigation, on which I know he will report.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Lady for her compliments to the emergency services, whose work has been remarkable. We have commented on them and supported them. I have commented on GNER services, which are identified I with the region and actively supported. I recognise that York has been the centre of our railway system for a long time and that many people will be concerned about disruption to services. I hope that we can reinstate those services as soon as possible.
I looked into the police reports about the weather, and there was concern about how bad it was. The gritters were on the M62. I think that the last gritting took place at about 2 am. A judgment was made later that the freezing frost was not continuing. Anyone who saw the early film on television would be aware that the weather was not the normal sort of patters that has been seen in certain parts of the country. We must wait for the outcome of the inquiry to give us further information about what caused


the car to leave the motorway. At present, it seems that the weather was not responsible, but I would not want to say that for sure.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Although my right hon. Friend will need to await the outcome of the investigation, I ask him at the appropriate time to give consideration to the provision of safety information for train passengers. When boarding an aeroplane, we take it for granted that such information will be made available. Is it not time to consider providing similar information to train passengers, especially about emergency, evacuation procedures, such as those that had to be used today by those caught up in a terrible accident?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is interesting that on this occasion, compared with a previous accident when there was concern about whether hammers were available to enable passengers to get outside, notices enabled passengers to get hammers to break out. It is always difficult to know whether passengers should stay in the train or get out.
We are talking of an electric passenger train, but the freight train carried oil and diesel, and there were fumes. Some passengers were obviously concerned that the fumes would lead to fire, as we saw in another incident. We have asked Lord Cullen and others to consider whether more safety information should be available. To be fair, the train companies have provided more information, but there was some talk earlier about whether the hammers were big enough and whether they could be changed. I think and hope that Lord Cullen will be able to give us further advice. I will follow up the matter with the Health and Safety Executive to ascertain whether there is anything more that we can do while we await reports.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I endorse what has been said about the management and staff of GNER, who have seen railway colleagues lose their lives in the accident. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that during all the recent emergencies the staff of GNER, at every level, have worked extremely hard to try to restore the quality of service and to support passengers in very difficult situations? As for reopening the line as soon as is reasonably possible, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that because of adverse weather conditions today, both lines to Scotland have been closed?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about GNER staff. I travel on the service for about 20,000 miles a year. I fine that the staff have an identity with the company and feel happy about the services that they are providing. I think that that is the experience of us all. The staff want it to provide the best service, and that comes across.
The importance of the railways emphasises that we need a good strategic network north and south and east and west. That reminds us how much we are dependent on the railway system. When we have these accidents, we are given the opportunity to think carefully about whether some routes should be compatible. For example, the route via Leeds is not electrified, but m my of the trains are. Today's incident is likely to bring such considerations to the fore.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: First, may I associate myself with all the comments from my

fellow North Yorkshire Members of Parliament? My right hon. Friend knows that I come from a railway community in every sense of the word, and that I have spent many years in York, working in the railway industry. Can he comment on media speculation that the train set involved in the incident today was the same one that was involved at Hatfield?
Secondly, in my right hon. Friend's initial discussions with the Highways Agency, did the agency express any views about the geometry of the slip road? Having worked for many years on incidents connected with bridges on our railways, I endorse the remarks of the Opposition spokesman about the need for progress on the interface between roads and railways. The Highways Agency bridge authorities throughout the country and Railtrack must try finally to crack the associated safety problems.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and for his support for the people who were involved in this terrible tragedy and for the emergency services.
I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point about media speculation. I do not suppose that it will make any difference, but I wish that they would not speculate without the facts, as that creates difficulties. From the initial speculation, one would have thought that the vehicle fell immediately on to the track. That is just not true. It careered for 100 m, well ahead of the crash barrier. The gradient of the embankment is 1:3. How the vehicle did not turn over is beyond me. It was a high-sided vehicle and was pulling another vehicle.
Events did not happen as the media speculated from an early stage. From time to time we hear from some so-called transport specialist, who has seen nothing but tells us what should happen and what we should change. That is not helpful. It alarms the relatives, because they get the wrong information. We should find out as much as we can, give the information to the House, and trust the report based on the information available at that time. I hope, although I do not expect that there is any chance of it, that the media will avoid speculating about what happened. It does not help, and my hon. Friend's question gives me an opportunity to say so.
It is true, I believe—I hope the inquiry will look into the matter—that one of the power units that was not damaged was one of those involved in the Hatfield crash. I must await the interim report before I can give a definite response. With regard to the slip road and the need to examine bridge and rail connections, the Highways Agency is looking into that. Research is under way and we will make the information available.
Again, as I said, if one looked at the route that the vehicle took down the side of the road and 100 m to the rail, one would not have thought that that would happen. One would imagine that the vehicle would have stopped well before that, but it did not. As in all tragedies, it is never one incident. It is two or three things together that make for a terrible tragedy. Who was to know that when the vehicle came off the road, a fast passenger train was approaching at 125 mph, as well as a freight coal train carrying a massive weight—thousands of tonnes—and travelling at 40 mph? The impact was phenomenal.
That set of circumstances defies belief. If I had come to the House and reported that such an accident had occurred, most hon. Members would have thought that it


was not possible. What one learns about tragedies is that the impossible often happens. That is always the difficulty for us when we try to avoid them.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who spoke a little earlier, may I associate myself with all the expressions of sympathy, the condolences and the tributes that the Deputy Prime Minister has paid? Will he pay tribute not only to rail staff, but to those passengers who, happily, were not too badly injured? From the interviews that have taken place during the day, it is apparent that great courage was shown by those who were still able-bodied after the tragic accident and who helped the more seriously injured to escape. Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay tribute in particular to members of the British Transport police? As he knows, their work is often forgotten, but there is no doubt that as well as GNER staff and the rail crews, British Transport police played a significant part today.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the expressions of sympathy and support from both sides of the House. I add my support for the work of the British Transport police. I travelled down with the assistant chief constable and discussed the situation with him. With so many agencies present, one tends to think that co-operation will not be possible, but it was not lacking at all.
The various authorities—the transport police, the civilian police, the fire services and so on—have developed a technique for co-operation that is admirable. They arrive within a short time and get on with the job. They understand it and do it, and one cannot but admire such co-operation. If they can do that despite the different bodies that they belong to, we get the best of services to deal with the most difficult circumstances when a terrible tragedy occurs. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to praise the co-operative work of all the agencies involved in the incident.

Mr. Jon Trickett: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement that he made so promptly this evening, and associate myself with his tribute to all those from the emergency services. Our sympathy goes out to all the bereaved and the injured. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the recent spate of accidents and disasters, railways remain the safest mode of transport?
In paying tribute to the emergency services, I emphasise the work done at Pontefract infirmary, where I understand that more than half the victims of the crash were treated. Not long ago, there was debate about the future of the infirmary. A strong case was made that the hospital is close not only to the railway, but to the A1, the M62, five or six working pits and an explosive chemical works in Castleford. Will my right hon. Friend convey my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who said in his statement two weeks ago that new money would be found for Pontefract, and that the accident and emergency service is safe there, 24 hours a day?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the emergency services and the statements

made from both sides of the House. He gives me the opportunity to say yes, rail is a very safe mode of transport, but the big question for us is whether we can make it safer. That is always the question on which the House will concentrate its mind. There will come a time when we will have more and more debates about it, but this is not the moment. I am pleased to say that all the signs are that it was riot a failure of a safety system that contributed to the collision today, but I must wait to see what the reports tell us.
It was not only Pontefract hospital, but quite a few hospitals in the Yorkshire area that responded tremendously. That is why the Minister for Public Health is up there, saying think you on behalf of all of us for what they have done. As to whether Pontefract hospital is under threat, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is on the Front Bench and will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett).

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I am not seeking to allocate blame or asking my right hon. Friend to do that, but I am concerned to learn tonight that at the point where one of the busiest motorways passes over one of the busiest railway routes in the country, the crash barriers intended to protect that it very busy railway route seem to have been inadequate and were certainly not long enough. Are those crash barriers the responsibility of Railtrack or of the Highways Agency?

Mr. Prescott: First, as my hon. Friend says, we must wait to see whether any criticisms are made about crash barriers. That investigation is under way. As my hon. Friend rightly says, that M62 is a busy motorway—one of our busiest—and cross the east coast line. The barriers have not been designd to deal with a Land Rover and a vehicle that career downn a bank and go on to the railway line. A balance must be struck. The barriers are not designed to prevent cars from going on to the railways. They are designed to stop lorries running into the bridges over railways, for obvious reasons. Barriers are built where the motorway runs alongside the railway, and crash barriers have then been put in place.
The matter will be investigated, and I assure my hon. Friend that the investigation will be reported to the House. The matter must be kept under constant review. The barriers are largely put in place to protect the bridges. As I reported to the House, the crash barrier is quite a long one. It is longer than is required under the regulations. Yet the vehicle left the road some 30 m before the beginning of the crash harrier and careered down the embankment in a way that surprised all of us. However there will be a thorough investigation and we will report back to the House.

Shona McIsaac: As I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware, the freight train involved in this terrible accident came from Immingham in my constituency, and I am sure that he will appreciate that, when the terrible news came through, it sent a shiver of fear through the families of freight drivers there. My right hon. Friend paid tribune to the passengers and drivers, but will he also pay tribute to the freight drivers who do such


tremendous work moving goods around the country, and do all that he can to ensure that Railfreight retains business confidence?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her words of support. She is right that there is considerable freight train activity on that line, particularly with the movement of coal to the power stations, which was certainly a contributory factor in the tragedy. Thousands of tonnes of deadweight coal had an effect on the impact. Workers and passengers risk death in such incidents, and the families of railway workers rely on television and radio for the latest information to discover whether their loved ones have been involved in any tragedy. When people speculate on the television and in the press they should bear in mind that there are people who are extremely worried about their loved ones, whether they are rail workers or passengers.

Mr. Ian Stewart: I add my condolences to all the families of those injured and killed, and my thoughts go to the workers from all the services involved in this terrible incident. It is clear from what has been said in the Chamber today that the accident was due not to a rail problem but a road problem, and he material used to guard motorways when they travel over roads or rail is of particular importance. In the village of Winton in my constituency there have been three incidents in a couple of years in which three different cars have gone off a motorway in similar circumstances to this tragedy, with resultant deaths. Fortunately, they did not hit the houses below. Will my right hon. Friend investigate whether concrete might be a more appropriate material for barriers in such areas?

Mr. Prescott: There have been a number of incidents over several years where bridges go, over roads or rails. Those are always a matter of concern and are fully investigated. Where crash barriers are deemed necessary they are provided. Whether the matterials used for the barriers might result in an unsafe road is a matter of concern, but if my hon. Friend care to write to me with particular examples I shall be happy to follow the matter up with the Highways Agency.

Mr. Harry Cohen: This was an appalling tragedy and the Secretary of State is right to extend sympathy to those families involved, to praise the emergency services and to institute quick and thorough inquiry. But will he personally consider the national standards for crash barriers and bride e parapets? They are meant to withstand 30tonne vehicles travelling at 40 mph. They were clearly not in place where this accident occurred. If the inquiry finds that he national standard must be upgraded, will my right ion. Friend give an assurance that that will happen?

Mr. Prescott: As I have said, barriers are installed largely to influence the path of any lorry or car that collides with them; they will not stop such vehicles, but they might clear them from the bridge itself. However, the standards are being considered and the investigation will cover such matters. We shall take on board any recommendations and bring them to the House.

Deferred Division

Mr. Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Deferred Divisions, the Ayes were 318, the Noes 119, so the motion was agreed to.

[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Foot and Mouth

Question again proposed.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: This is an important debate. Unfortunately, my constituency is one of the two within Lancashire where foot and mouth has been confirmed. The other is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) where that horrible disease has been confirmed at an abattoir in Great Harwell; that is tragic news. My hon. Friend is suffering the same pain as I am, and people are rightly at a loss about what to do next. My hon. Friend is working hard and has been in touch with MAFF requesting help and advice on behalf of his constituents. They could not been represented by a better Member.
On Monday, we heard on the bush telegraph that there was a suspected case of foot and mouth in Chorley. MAFF was informed, and by 11 o'clock the next morning I had a telephone call confirming that foot and mouth had been established in the village of Withnell. To have such a horrible disease confirmed in a constituency such as Chorley, which has hundreds of farmers who are now worried for their future, is the worst news possible.
After I received the telephone call confirming the disease I telephoned the police, but I was told that they had not received confirmation. I was able to tell them that I had had confirmation from MAFF, but that matter requires urgent attention. Clearly, the police and other services involved should be told, and those who answer the telephones on behalf of the Lancashire police should be aware of the situation. The police should set up hotlines so that people who fear, or suspect, that they have foot and mouth on their farms can be dealt with immediately. We have the MAFF and the NFU hotlines, but the police, too, should have such a hotline. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn feels the same. People in Lancashire are worried that they cannot always get though to the right people in the police, so I hope that that problem is addressed quickly. Other constabularies in Britain should also ensure that they, too, have a hotline.
Before hearing the news I had spoken to the leader of the council, Jack Wilson, who had also heard whispers on the bush telegraph. When 11 o'clock came I knew we had to move quickly. I spoke to the local authority, which had already established that refuse vehicles would not enter farms within the constituency, but would stay on the highway and refuse would be brought to them. The local authority had therefore responded quickly.
Lancashire county council was also involved. I spoke to one farmer who rightly got in touch with the county council which, in turn, got in touch with me. Through its good offices, the council has played a major part. It has closed footpaths and is working with the police to ensure that people do not walk across the fields and spread the disease—the worst danger that we all fear.
The problem is that people are in fear and do not know where the disease will strike next. The district council and the county council, including County Councillor Steve Holgate, rightly played their role. I have spoken to local councillors, who share the same views whatever their political persuasions. This is not about politics. Councillor Iris Smith, who represents the Withnell ward, and Councillor Kerry Jones were the first two people to whom

I spoke. I mentioned to Councillor David Dickinson of the neighbouring wart that there was a problem just down the road from him. I also spoke to the local farmers on the district council, including Councillors Harold Heaton and Frank Culshaw, to ensure that they were aware of what was happening within the Chorley constituency. Everybody rightly showed great sympathy and worry. The constituency may cover an area of 80 square miles and have hundreds of forms, but it is close-knit, and the message went out.
The anxiety is about where the disease will go next. I feel sorry for farmers indeed, I always have done, as they have done badly for many years. I know that the Government have tried to address that problem, but now farmers face a new one. I want to ensure that this outbreak is not the final nail n the coffin of agriculture. I know that we all feel the same. Whatever happens and whatever is being said, we all know one thing: we want to ensure that when we have eradicated the disease, there is still a farming industry at the end of it. The House is united on that, and we should move forward. We want to ensure that farming will continue.
The plight of a Farmer whose land neighbours an infected farm is a for lonely one. He cannot go out and does not have any contact with other people. Farming is lonely at the best of times, but now is the loneliest time for a farmer. He does not know what is going on and has no contact with other people. The Government have tried to address the problem with extra financial resources for farming. However, marry farmers may lose out financially because of the over- 30-months scheme. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that those voices are not lost, and that people who are struggling will be helped and looked after.
The danger of any compensation scheme is that although people will get the money, they never quite know when that will happen. That danger is faced by farmers who have already experienced financial ruin. As they now face the extra problem of the disease and the burden that it brings, I want us not only to make the money available and award the compensation, but to consider making interim payments in cases of need, especially if the process is to be a long one. I would have thought that that was not impossible, so we should consider making interim payments available.

Mr. Nick Brown: I make no firm commitment tonight, but I intend to set what can be done to pull the agrimonetary payments, its forward to the earliest date on which they can practically be made. I shall be talking to Commissioner Fischier to see whether I can have the Commission's help in achieving what my hon. Friend asks for.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, which all hon. Members will welcome. I know that he is genuine and means what he says. We all recognise that and we welcome his assurance.
It is sad in itself that the slaughtering has occurred in my constituency. No hon. Members ever want that to happen in their constituencies, but the problem also affects the farms adjoining those where the presence of the disease has been confirmed, which are waiting to see whether there are any signs of the disease. The farmers and their families sit there worrying, and they, too, face a


serious financial plight. They cannot take their animals to the abattoir or use the special rules that we introduce. The welfare of their animals is important. They must be fed and looked after, so there is a running cost.
The clock is ticking away, and we cannot say how long the farms that neighbour those where foot and mouth disease has been confirmed will last. We do not know how long it will be before any cattle can be moved to special abattoirs. It is the plight of those farmers and the worry that they face that I am highlighting. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider whether special payments can be made to those adjoining farms. Nobody wants to move anything off them or to have any contact with them. Will my right hon. Friend consider that serious financial problem, which must be addressed?
People will ask why we must eradicate foot and mouth disease. We must do so for the future of farming in this country. It is our utmost aim and our main objective to ensure complete eradication. That is the only way in which we can export in future, especially to the United States, which will not touch a country that has not completely eradicated foot and mouth. It is those markets that we need, and to which we want to return. It is crucial for farming that we get back into the international market. On that basis, can we ensure that we do not import from countries that have foot and mouth disease? Let us be strong and take a firm stance, like the United States, to ensure that we do not receive imports from countries that have the disease and are not dealing with it properly.
I know that my right hon. Friend takes care of the farming industry. I know that that aim is in his heart and that he will continue to work on the industry's behalf. I speak on behalf of the industry, but especially for the Lancashire farmers, and my right lion. Friend came to Chorley to meet some of its hundreds of farmers. It is crucial that we look after them and do not allow our farming industry to bleed to death because it lacks the finances to carry on.
I know that the Government are committed to meeting the needs of those farmers, but these things always come down to time. As my right hon. friend said, time is essential and we must consider the matter as urgently as possible. I know that MAFF has played a super role and that he has done a super job. MAFF must continue to work with the farming industry and local farmers in the Chorley area, as well as with the National Farmers Union. We would struggle without MAFF, und I cannot praise it and the Minister enough on farmers behalf, but I look forward to quick help and support to ensure that their livelihood is preserved. Let us get behind the industry and ensure that British farming is put back on the world map, and once again leads the world in quality farming with quality welfare. That is what I want to see.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Several hon. Members have mentioned the plight of abattoirs. Before I add my comments on that facet of the discussion, I must declare an interest. It is unlikely that there will be an abattoir owner in the next Parliament, although there might be so many redundant owner that many will seek nomination for election to Parliament.
I question whether this Parliament has profited from the presence of an abattoir owner among its Members. I have regularly and persistently tried to flag up the threat to our

small abattoirs and the consequences of their closure. Just as regularly and consistently, however, the Government have tried to avoid facing up to the reality. Twelve months ago, I asked the Minister of Agriculture when he would implement the recommendations of the Pooley report. In reply, I received a written answer from the Minister of State, who stated:
it is our intention that this should be done as speedily as possible."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 79W.]
I shall not bore the House by quoting from the many, many other questions that I have asked in the intervening 12 months, but I received an answer to a question on the same subject this week. I asked the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on meat inspection charges for smaller abattoirs. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who had to answer because of a change in duties and responsibilities, said, "I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible." Twelve months have passed since the Minister of State said that she intended to act as speedily as possible, but the Under-Secretary is now saying the same thing. Smaller abattoirs, which were seriously worried even before the foot and mouth problem arose, are still living in uncertainty because a new meat inspection charging regime is due to be implemented on 1 April and, as far as I know, they have not yet received from the Ministry a categorical description of what will happen.
Before I pursue that theme, I must say that we heard an excellent, sensible speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who pointed out that many abattoirs are large and specialist, and that that fact necessitates the movement of large numbers of stock over great distances throughout the United Kingdom. Those abattoirs are so big because their customers are the big supermarket chains, which smaller abattoirs are unable to supply because they cannot guarantee the volume or meet the specifications regularly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred to the abattoir in his constituency that specialises in killing sows that are exported to the continent. However, there are two other categories of abattoir. Historically, a large number were associated with meat products factories, where the product of the abattoir was fed into the production of the factory. A few still exist, but my concern is for the future of small abattoirs, and the particular relevance of the small local abattoir in the context of the debate.
The whole House wants the movement ban to be lifted as soon as possible, but hon. Members will appreciate the Minister's difficulty in lifting the ban completely and allowing the mass movement of livestock up and down the country to large specialist abattoirs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred. That would, of course, risk spreading the disease further. It seems to me, and perhaps the Minister agrees, that if the ban is to be lifted, it may have to be lifted incrementally and only within a radius of a few miles of abattoirs.
In that context, smaller abattoirs will perhaps be able to reopen their doors, whereas larger abattoirs, denied the large numbers that they need to make their economics come right, may not be able to open on the same basis until the Minister can lift the ban completely.

Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about those matters, but the Government


are considering direct movement from farm to slaughterhouse, and movement from farm to holding area to slaughterhouse, in part to enable batches of animals to be assembled from different sources, thereby facilitating the workings of the trade. The crucial issue for us is the risk of spreading the disease. I cannot compromise on that. There will be no movements in any form that risk spreading the disease. What matters is not so much the length of a journey as the conditions in which it is undertaken. In particular, on the advice of veterinary authorities, my absolute insistence is that animals that travel directly to a slaughterhouse, or from a holding area to a slaughterhouse, have no chance to mix with other animals that are not going directly to slaughter.

Mr. Gill: Needless to say, I agree entirely that the ban must be lifted only on the basis of animals being consigned directly to an abattoir, so that the risk of spreading the disease is minimised.
I return to my theme, which Ministers know that I have been pursuing for at least two years. I remind the House that in June I initiated a debate in Westminster Hall on rural abattoirs. I used a statistic given by a Labour Minister in the other place. Baroness Hayman said:
red meat slaughterhouses in this country declined in number from 1,385 in 1975 to 339 last year."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 797.]
That is a dramatic reduction, and the casualties were mainly smaller abattoirs. Some of the problems that we are experiencing were, to my mind, entirely foreseeable. I am not saying that we could have foreseen foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever or BSE, but we could have foreseen the consequences of effectively driving the smaller abattoirs out of business. Our common sense alone should have told us that piling bureaucracy and costs on to small abattoir operators would make those abattoirs uneconomic and cause their closure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar talked about large abattoirs. I accept that they can employ economies of scale, but smaller abattoirs are important in the local community. We have too few already. Labour Members have queried whether we have enough and whether they are strategically situated, and we need assurance from the Government that nothing more will be done to prejudice their future. I say that because a reduction in the number of private butchers and specialist meat producers who supply niche markets is an inevitable result of the demise of small abattoirs.
All parties in the House have flagged up the development of niche markets as one of the great hopes for the future of agricultural industries, not least the livestock industry—but without the smaller, specialist abattoirs, there will be no niche meat markets. Big plant abattoirs are not the least bit interested in dealing with small numbers of animals for specialist outlets, just as no big abattoirs are interested in taking an animal for private kill for home consumption, or slaughtering a perfectly fit animal that has to be disposed of. Only smaller abattoirs have been prepared to continue that service. It would be wrong, but administratively convenient, for Ministers and the Department to deal with a relatively small number of big abattoirs rather than the few hundred in existence, and many in the trade suspect that administrative convenience outweighs all the other considerations.
The situation is certainly serious: there is a prospect of the livestock industry being decimated. I do not think that any Member on either side of the House doubts that the margins on which livestock farmers currently operate are minuscule, and I beheve that this will be the last straw for many of them. There will also be a high attrition rate among specialist live stock hauliers. All that is bad news for the livestock industry in general.
It is ironic that in imposing ever stricter standards on the British industry—I refer not just to the livestock industry but to abattoirs and manufacturing industry—we are making our own industry less and less competitive. Yet we are apparently prepared to admit imports from anywhere in the world, provided that they carry a piece of paper stating that the meat was produced in conditions of which we approve.
Ministers will say that they have evidence in their Departments of instances of the law not being complied with in this country. What makes them confident enough to believe that the law in all the countries from which we import is being applied as rigorously as it is here, and that the products that we import meet the standards on which we insist?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is not the truth of what my hon. Friend says demonstrated by the fact that the infection must have come from abroad? The disease had been eradicated in this country. Whatever else may eventually transpire, it has come here from abroad.

Mr. Gill: Absolutely. The same point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was once Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food He said—I think I quote him correctly—that the cause of the disease had presumably come from abroad. If we did not have the disease a fortnight ago and we have it now, it must have come from somewhere; therefore it must have come from abroad.
I understand the difficulty in which the present Minister finds himself, and I know that he understands the point that I am making to hem, which is: how are we to maintain our high health status while allowing imports from the rest of the universe? Is it fair to bear down on our own industry in se draconian a fashion, making it uncompetitive and putting sections of it out of business, while the product that it used to supply is supplied by foreigners?
I believe in free markets and free competition, but we all face a dilemma that must be resolved. If the recent outbreak of classical swine fever was caused by someone carelessly discarding the proverbial ham sandwich, no amount of trouble that Ministers and Departments go to in order to ensure that our animal health status is maintained will be effective. Sooner or later, Ministers must address the question of food imports in a much more robust fashion, or else accept that the objective of maintaining 100 pet cent. animal health status is not feasible.
That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), when I asked whether we would be able to turn our face against vaccination for ever. It is possible to do that for ever and a day, provided that there is a cordon sanitaire around these islands, and provided that we know that no import will destroy our 100 per cent. animal health


status. The question on which tie House, and the Government in particular, must now focus is this: where is the present policy leading us?
We all agree that the slaughter policy is correct now, but we are dealing with a situation that is very different from that of 1967. The whole world has moved on, and, as many Members have pointed out, trade has been globalised since then. We must keep an open mind on, for example, whether we can sustain our high health status without vaccination; and we should perhaps reconsider the policy of slaughtering, slaughtering and slaughtering again until the disease has apparently been eradicated. Neither the Minister nor I can estimate how many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of animals may have to be killed before we get to the end of the problem.
I have made this point many times, but I need to make it again. Ministers must understand that if the abattoirs close, there is scant prospect of their reopening. The reason is straightforward. Abattoirs operate on high volumes and low margins; they are now burdened with a huge amount of bureaucracy and inspection, and there are always the environmental pressures imposed on them by neighbours.
As with galvanising works, everyone knows where an abattoir should not be sited, but no one will say where one should be sited— and if an abattoir owner has a site that could be developed for housing or any other purpose, he could hardly be blamed for cashing in his chips and going out of business in the present circumstances. That is regrettable.
What is to be done? Movement must be resumed. We must halt the unnecessary closure of small abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to the parlous state of the United Kingdom's biggest pig abattoir. The problem does not just affect small or medium-sized abattoirs, or indeed large abattoirs; it affects all abattoirs, including the biggest, which is in Malton in my hon. Friend's constituency. The maintaining of the movement ban threatens the future of all abattoirs, regardless of size.
Let me end by saying something that is self-evidently true: without abattoirs, there can be no livestock industry. The Minister needs to understand the importance of keeping all our abattoirs going, to provide the industry with an essential service and to convert its product into a food that the public will, I am sure, wish to buy. I believe that, given the choice, the vast majority of the British people would prefer to buy meat produced in this country.

Mr. Mark Todd: I should start by declaring a tangential interest. I own five acres in Derbyshire, which are occupied by about 15 sheep. I receive no money or material gain from that. I have asked the young couple who look after them to take precautions, mainly to prevent possible infection from me because I travel a good deal within my constituency and there is a suspected case—although, fortunately, the initial test has proved negative—in Hartshorne in my area. We hope that the outcome will continue to prove negative, but, clearly, that case has caused much concern among the local farming community. The community of south Derbyshire respects its local farmers, although it does not always agree with everything that they do, and regards them as an important part of what is essentially a rural community with strong ties.
Let me touch on the immediate issues. The first relates to a conversation that I had this morning with a farmer who is not from my constituency, but from the neighbouring constituency—that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). The farmer raised comparisons with the way in which the crisis had been dealt with in 1967, which shows that some people farming now were farming in 1967 and they have accurate memories, as they see it, of what happened then. From what he had observed from a distance, that farmer felt that animals were being slaughtered and carcases destroyed less speedily than in 1967. I remarked that I thought that one of the difficulties was the different circumstances now; the infection is much more widespread. In 1967, it was concentrated in particular areas and it was easier to marshal resources to destroy animals speedily. Nevertheless, I pass on the remark that he made from his experience.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). He probably knows that I agree with much of what he said about abattoirs. When he strayed into references to foreigners, he lost my sympathy somewhat, but I have pursued a long campaign in my time as a Member of Parliament on the competitiveness issue: how we regulate and charge for abattoir services and the effect that that has had, particularly on the small abattoir community.
I think that I have achieved some progress. Initially, the competitiveness issue was not regarded as relevant; it was regarded essentially as a matter for individual Community countries, not a concern of Her Majesty's Government. Then a full survey was conducted of relative charges and charging regimes and, not to everyone's surprise, it was discovered that the regulatory regime that we applied was rather more rigorous in some ways and certainly more expensive.
I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's comments about the slow progress in implementing the recommendations made in the Pooley report. Small abattoirs still await a clear answer on the appropriate charging regime that they should have, which would better secure their future.
The incident in my constituency relates to an abattoir. As I said, I hope that it does not end up being a proven case. This afternoon I spoke to one of the workers at the abattoir. He had been laid off and was, not surprisingly, concerned about what would happen to him in the period in which his workplace was shut. He pointed out that around 90 per cent. of the produce of the abattoir, which is largely a specialist halal operation, is exported to Germany. Thus there are two problems: the constraint on movements that the business would face; and the constraint on exports, which is its main source of income.
I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments about the consequential implications for other parts of the agriculture supply chain at this time of crisis. That business is not large and it appears to have traded in good faith. In those circumstances, the needs of such businesses deserve proper consideration. Obviously, farmers close to that business who have had no part in any matter relating to the crisis so far, but who are nevertheless restricted on their premises, also need some thought, because there are now implications for their cash flow. I believe that yesterday's announcement goes some way towards that, but it does so in a random way—which is inevitable if it is relying largely on agrimonetary compensation. Many of


those who are not affected will receive some assistance, whereas many of those who are affected with some severity will receive the same assistance. Obviously that will cause difficulties.
I believe that there is scope to examine further the possibility of supporting consequential losses in some manner. I urge the Minister to continue investigating that issue and to use whatever means are available. I know that he has sympathy for those who have been placed in that situation. I also realise that it is a complicated process to satisfy his colleagues in the Government and, potentially, the European Commission that he is doing the right thing. Nevertheless, I urge him to continue with that focus.
The action that my right hon. Friend has announced to try to get the supply chain working again will have the most immediate effect, and it is what most business people would like. They would rather be paid for doing their job than paid something by the Government not to do it. In that light, I very much welcome the announcement and look forward with great interest to seeing the details of how the scheme will work. I am sure that that interest will be shared by many members of the South Derbyshire farming community.
The other gap that I have identified was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—the briefing to local authorities on their role in the matter. I spoke to South Derbyshire district council about refuse collection from farms, but it had already identified the need to respond effectively. I just wonder, however, whether that knowledge is fully shared across the country. In some parts of our country, the linkage between the local authority and the local farming community is perhaps a little less robust. In that respect, there should be a clear brief on what should be expected, and some of the points made by my hon. Friend are certainly relevant. I think that clearer guidance is probably necessary.
As for the medium to long term, I have already addressed the issue—although the hon. Member for Ludlow has done it much better—of clarification of the role of small abattoirs. I am trying to examine whether some of our difficulties—of course not the original infection, but some of our difficulties with migration of the disease across the country—have been caused by unnecessarily long journeys. I certainly accept the knowledgeable comments that have been made about specialisation in the abattoir sector. Although specialisation has made some long journeys inevitable, other long journeys are not inevitable.
We should bear in mind the experience of the 1960s, when outbreaks were concentrated around particular places of infection, partly because the movement of animals across the country was not as intensive as it is now. I think that there is now an opportunity to re-examine that issue and certainly to clarify the charging regime that the abattoir sector now faces.
We also need to examine the supply chain within agriculture. Some well-informed remarks have been made in this debate about the changing way in which the supply chain is working and the increasing specialisation of some sectors, both of which have led to particular types of beasts being taken on long journeys around the country to

particular abattoirs. I am not sure how robustly understood that is or how well we understand the risks associated with the way in which supply chains have developed.
Supply chains have developed for entirely understandable market reasons. As those who have listened to my speeches before will know, I am essentially a strong, robust supporter of the marketplace in agriculture. Nevertheless, operation of the market does not always entail proper risk awareness. There needs to be some thought about that issue. Yesterday, I listened to a farmer who was on the television talking about the number of movements that seem to be made. A hon. Member earlier in the debate spoke about the apparent frequency of movements.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this matter in many forums on many occasions, and he will know that I share his general support for the importance of the market. However, I am very concerned about the pernicious effect of supermarkets, for example, in breaking the link between the supplier the retailer and the consumer. The extension of food-produce supply chains of the type that the hon. Gentleman described is largely the result of the breaking of that link. We need to look for ways to reunite purchasers with the source of the goods that they purchase. Farmers' markets represent one of those ways, but I fear that, sadly, they will be among the victims of this outbreak.

Mr. Todd: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. He and I have disagreed in the past. I do not think that it is possible to roll back history, but we need to understand what we have done. I am not sure that we do understand that, and I shall return to the point at the end of my remarks.
I want to make three final points. First, we have failed to grasp the consequences of farm diversification. We press on farmers the need to diversify, and it is right that we should: I do it too, but the problem came home to me again yesterday, when I visited a farmer in my constituency. We talked—I should add that the meeting took place outside his premises—about the impact of the outbreak on his business. He told me that he had moved into horses, for which he lets out some buildings. People come in to look after the horses, or to go riding from the farm.
That diversification introduces a further risk that the disease might be spread by the movement of animals. It certainly makes control more complex: the farmer to whom I spoke has had to stop people entering his farm, horses from leaving it, and so on. Such difficulties for farmers are in part the consequence of the thrust to move away from the raw material production on which they had concentrated until recently. We must try to understand the risk implications of diversification rather better.
Secondly, reference has been made to globalisation and the implications associated with imports. It is clear that this outbreak started from something imported but, once again, we cannot roll back the frontiers in that regard. We must try to understand better the risks involved with imports, and to establish more robust controls at our borders. We cannot avert those risks utterly, but we must try to minimise them wherever we can.
We must understand td that increasing proportions of our foodstuffs come from abroad because that is what our consumers want. It has been said that our consumers


really want to buy British. I wish that that were true, but all too often consumers either want to buy foodstuffs that are not—and cannot be—produced in this country, or foodstuffs that can be produced here but at a cost that is higher than people are prepared to pay.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the lion. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. In case he is worried, I assure him that I shall not attempt to intervene a third time. I believe that, sadly, most consumers have become less discerning. They do not know the origins of the products that they buy. That is part of the break in the link that I described earlier: people not know where their food—whether it be processed food or all sorts of other foodstuffs—comes from. It is not that they do not want to exercise choice, but in many circumstances choice is now almost impossible to exercise.

Mr. Todd: It was never possible for people to have the totality of knowledge that we might wish for, but we have another opportunity to bring hone to consumers the importance of thinking carefully about what to eat. The outbreak almost certainly derives from an import of some sort, and we must recognise that the choices open to consumers carry implications. We cannot stop people making the choices that they want to make, but we can make sure that they are aware of the risks involved.
Finally, we have very little knowledge of the consequences of the intensification of agriculture in Britain. That intensification took place for entirely market-oriented reasons. I subscribe o that motive, and I do not want to roll back the process, entirely. However, very often we have intensified agriculture in ignorance, and sometimes with a painful lack of knowledge of the scientific and risk implications.
I say that because, at my suggestion, the Select Committee on Agriculture started an inquiry, prompted by the Phillips report, into research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathy and into the implications of intensive farming. So far, we have had a good deal of evidence on research into TSE, which I expected. There has been a strong emphasis on that important subject. However, there has been virtually nothing on the revolution that has taken place in agriculture over the past 30 years and the possible implications that that may have for animal health, human health and our environment.
It is painful to acknowledge that we seem to be so poor at understanding the revolution that has taken place before our very eyes—certainly in my lifetime, and I have lived in the countryside for most of my life. That process has crept past us without our having any proper understanding of its implications. We have simply accepted incrementally, on the argument of the marketplace, what has come about, without examining thoroughly enough what steps have been taken and whether we have subtly and silently accepted a risk that, frankly, we would not have accepted had we known more about it. What I am suggesting is not an immediate task for the Minister, who has plenty to do, but I would like us to consider whether we need a much stronger research programme into the implications of some of the choices that we have made.
I will say what I have said many times in these debates. I believe that there is a bright future for United Kingdom farming—and this is a strange time to say it. To be honest, the brightness is not shining through the gloom around us.

However, there is a tremendous amount of enterprise and a strength of product that could create wealth and jobs in our countryside into the future. That vision is always before me, even when we face a dark subject of this kind, and we should constantly hold it up to our farming communities. They are feeling about as gloomy as one can imagine at the moment.
We are giving our farming communities more support, but I think that we also need to give them greater evidence of our faith in their future. I constantly hear it said that the Government no longer care about farming. As a committed supporter of British farming, I find that terrible. Any lover of the English landscape would find it terrible too. We need to give far stronger evidence of our commitment and faith, particularly at times of crisis such as this.

Mr. James Gray: It is always fascinating to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), although I do not share his limited optimism about the future of the farming industry in the United Kingdom. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I and my many constituents who farm find it difficult to imagine that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. However, I hope that he is right. I, too, believe, that we have the science, the farming, the soil, the weather and the history to beat the pants off any other agricultural nation in the world. Sadly, the problems facing the industry are such that I, for one, am not enough of a visionary to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it does exist.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench on calling this vital debate at this time in our farming history. I do not wish to bring any hint of party political bickering into what has thus far been a level-headed and sensible debate, but in the long history of the Government failing to call any debate on farming—I think that there has been one Government debate in the past two or three years and eight or nine called by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which strikes me as a strange recordit is particularly unfortunate that in this of all weeks the Conservative party has had to call the debate and force the Government to come to the House to discuss this vital topic. As recently as the day before yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was decrying the fact that we were wasting his time by calling him to Westminster to answer to the nation for what is going on.
This has been a good debate, and I intend to talk about the crisis that faces the nation. None the less, it is worth registering the fact that the Conservative party cares enough about the crisis to have called the debate, but that the Labour party does not. The Labour Government spent yesterday banning foxhunting. They feel more strongly about a few foxes than the many hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep that may have to be destroyed. I regret that. I feel passionately about foxhunting and about farming. The history of this week will be noted by people in the countryside and if they were able to be in London on 18 March—unfortunately, they cannot be—the Government would know that.

Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman chastises us for not holding a debate. I welcome the fact that we have held a


measured debate. Before it began, I looked at the history of BSE; it is interesting to note that, during the period when the hon. Gentleman was an adviser to the then Conservative Government, nearly all the debates on BSE were called by the Labour Opposition because the Conservatives did not want to talk about it.

Mr. Gray: I accept the hon. Gentleman's chastisement. It will also have been heard on his side of the House, so the Government will have understood that he is equally unhappy with their record on the matter.
This matter is not one for levity or for party political bickering. I hope that the House will forgive me for introducing a slight element of that, but I wanted to register those points at the beginning of my remarks.
I am deeply concerned because my constituency is primarily a livestock and dairy farming area. One hundred yards across the border with the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), there is a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in the Bromham abattoir. I understand that a second case has been confirmed today at a farm a short distance from the abattoir.
My constituents include a large number of livestock farmers. I saw many of them last Friday at Chippenham market. Naturally, they are holding their breath as they watch the appalling tragedy that is unfolding across the nation; those of us who are not farmers, who live in towns and have occupations such as that of Member of Parliament cannot understand that. Farms in my constituency tend to be family farms and are generally of 400 or 500 acres, with between 100 and 150 milking cows. The farmers tend to do most of the work themselves nowadays; because of the crisis in agriculture, they have laid off most of their workers.
What an awful prospect those farmers face. Day in and day out, they work with about 150 animals—milking them twice a day, knowing their background and pedigrees. They know their animals as many of us know our families. They face the prospect that, by tomorrow, there may be huge bonfires, such as those we saw in the north of England, and that their yards will be eerily quiet and they will have nothing to do. They will have no means of employment and no income—they have precious little at the moment. What an effect this outbreak will have on those individuals; we have not touched on that matter sufficiently in the debate.
Farming is not only about large farms and abattoirs; it is about family farms such as those throughout the west of England. It is also about people who live, work and breathe farming and livestock. If foot and mouth came to their farm, it would bring a catastrophe that those of us who do not farm can only imagine.
Before I discuss the practical handling of the crisis in my constituency, I express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friends about the overwhelming importance in the medium to long term—once this horrible event has passed—of finding out why the outbreak occurred. We know that it came from abroad—the Minister said so during his opening remarks—but we do not know whether it was a sandwich in an airport rubbish bin or illegally imported meat; we do not know

where it came from. It cannot have been brought in on the wind; it must have been on some form of transport. It is vital that we know in detail, and publicly, where this terrible tragedy cam from.
Having been rather ungracious towards the Minister earlier in my speech, I now add my voice to those that we have heard throughout the debate to point out that he seems to have acted with decisiveness, clarity and urgency. He has taken precisely the right steps to contain the outbreak.
I was at Chippenham market at 1 o'clock last Friday, when the auctioneer made the announcement about the ending of the transportation of livestock to the dairy ring, which was then in use. Hon. Members can imagine the feeling around the ring about the appalling catastrophe facing farmers. I went around speaking to them, and, to a man, they all said, "Thank goodness that is being done. It is a terrible prospect, but it is exactly the right thing to do. We've got to contain the outbreak now, and we must take urgent and dramatic action to do so." The Minister and his officials have done exactly the right thing.
One or two of the farmers in my constituency have been in touch with MAFF officials in the south-west. They were very impressed by how efficient, courteous and, to use a rather new Labour word, caring the officials were; they have been absolutely switched on and first class. Similar comments were made earlier, and I am sure that the Minister will pass our thanks to the south-west office in particular. The people facing the appalling events that may happen on their farms or in their abattoirs are under great stress, but they have been handled extremely well.
I congratulate the people, whom I saw last night, from the Countryside Alliance on acting with equal determination and straightforwardness in cancelling the march that would have taken place on 18 March. They have been working flat out on the project for 18 months. Half a million people were planning to come to London, using a large number of buses and trains. A ship was even chartered in the north-east of England, and four of my constituents who are disabled were planning to attend. It was a huge event to cancel, but it was absolutely right to do so. Irrespective of one's views on hunting, I congratulate the people in the Countryside Alliance on having taken the clear and straightforward decision to cancel the march.
I should like to raise two or three issues on the practicalities of the past few days' events. First, I want to touch on the way in which the livestock industry operates. Of course, I accept the great wisdom of those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), rightly think that the meat industry tends to deal in large quantities. It is true that the supermarkets demand 5,000 head of sheep one week and 5,000 head of something else the next. Those animals must be found and transported to the abattoir that the supermarket requires.
Of course meat production tends to involve a large-volume industry, but our experience in the west country is slightly different. We still have a large number of family butchers, purchasing meat from animals killed in local abattoirs. In my constituency, apart from the abattoir affected by foot and mouth disease, the excellent Drury abattoir at Tockenham is still struggling and surviving the crisis in family abattoirs. However, Newman's abattoir at Malmesbury has had to close,


despite the fact that it achieved international notoriety because of the two pigs that were released in Malmesbury a year or two ago. None the less, it has had to close, but Drury is carrying on.
In the west country generally and in my constituency, many family farms still produce livestock that is slaughtered at the abattoir down the road, with the meat being sold at a local retail outlet. Huge movements of animals across the nation, huge abattoirs and cellophane-wrapped meat in Sainbury's may be inevitable, but rather like the inevitability of the closure of village shops, I hope that it does not happen. I will continue to support Drury and the local meat retailer in the hope that we can preserve some localism in the meat industry.

Mr. Nicholls: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend and I both come from the west country, does he agree that it is heart-rending that, even in the absolute misery of their despair, farmers are saying that if there is compensation in due course—we have all been impressed with what the Minister has said recently—it must be for not just themselves, but their communities? The fact that, when they are in the depths of despair, they are also thinking about the others who have been affected says something about the communities that we represent.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I hope that his constituency will not be affected, but it may well be because Devon is one of the centres of the outbreak. He is right that those who operate abattoirs or run heavy goods vehicles to transport animals are currently receiving no income at all—they have had to close down. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire told us about the worker from an abattoir in his constituency who has been laid off today. That will happen across the nation. However, those businesses have not been told that they will receive compensation from the Government, but they will seek some means of surviving when the crisis is over.
We should be particularly concerned about two sectors in the livestock industry. First, what are farmers to do with beasts that are just under 30 months old? How long will they have to keep them and what compensation will they receive for the feed that they have to give the animals until they become eligible under the over-30-months scheme? I know that the Minister will give careful thought to that issue.
The second group is finishers. They finish the beasts off, but what will happen if they cannot do anything with them and the animals go beyond the specified date? How can one assess the value that one has lost from such a finished animal? Will the Minister also consider that point?
We know about the restrictions on the movements of animals and the restrictions on walkers, but what will happen if large areas of the countryside are closed off? Chippenham is only a mile or two away from an affected abattoir, and the people there do not know what they should or should not be doing. For example, there has been talk about closing schools, but should the schools remain open? I have set an absolute rule that members of the Conservative party should do no campaigning of any sort in villages or the countryside. We shall continue to campaign in the town, where we should be reasonably all right. However, people do not know what they can and cannot do in the restricted areas.
That point applies even to the Avon Vale hunt that is based a few hundred yards away from the affected abattoir. It was told nothing at all, and it learned only from the news that the neighbouring abattoir had a case of foot and mouth. It was told nothing until it took the trouble to ring MAFF officials in the south-west. It was then treated courteously and was told precisely what it could and could not do. It has been given a special dispensation to bring in fallen stock. Everything is fine now but, initially, the hunt did not know what it could do.
If the tragedy expands across the nation, I hope that the MAFF official responsible—it may be the press officer—will find ways of getting the message across. It should go not only to livestock owners and to farmers—they probably already know what they can do—but to the much wider audience in an area such as mine. People are very worried about the disease, and they do not want to contribute to it spreading. Apart from the obvious point about not walking across farms, they are not clear about what they can do.
Hon. Members have referred to how other organisations, such as the police, should react to the crisis. I have been asked to raise an interesting case with the Minister about the way in which the Wiltshire police reacted to the actions of the farmer at Manor farm, Thorn Hill, Wootton Bassett near Swindon. He lives down a dead-end road that no one, apart from the residents of two or three cottages alongside it, uses. He was determined to stop the disease spreading on to his farm, so he decided to put straw and disinfectant on to the road. That may not be entirely effective in preventing the spread of the disease in all circumstances, but it makes a useful contribution.
Unfortunately, the police told the farmer that he was not allowed to put straw and disinfectant on to the road and that he would be responsible if anyone driving along the road were involved in an accident. They insisted that he should clear the road of the straw and disinfectant. I am told such cases have also occurred in other areas, because the police are unclear about the road traffic regulations and about the risks that straw and disinfectant on small roads, such as this one, and larger roads create.
MAFF officials should talk to other agencies, such as the police and the emergency services, to make it clear to them what farmers can do and what would happen if straw or disinfectant on the road resulted in a tragic accident. Who would be responsible? Is it possible that the farmer might not be held responsible? Will the Minister take the trouble of letting Mr. Tim Bennett of Manor farm know the answer to those questions? The issue has been raised in newspapers and in other areas.
The Minister knows the appalling consequences that livestock farmers face. The debate has been useful. It has given us many opportunities to ensure that he is fully aware of the catastrophe facing farmers, such as those in my constituency. I hope that he will listen carefully to those concerns. Of course there are urgent matters to which he must attend to contain the disease, and that is the priority. However, in 1967 the farming industry was reasonably healthy and could handle a similar crisis. I doubt that areas such as mine, where there are predominantly family farmers, can handle this crisis.
The issue of compensation and rebuilding the industry after the crisis has passed is overwhelmingly important. If the Minister does not pay that due attention and merely


does the least that he can get away with by providing agrimonetary compensation—which we needed to keep the farming industry alive before the crisis—the farming industry will die. He must find a way to compensate farmers and supporting industries for their losses so that we can look forward, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, to having the same healthy farming industry in 10 or 20 years' time that we used to have. The Minister's heart is in the right place, but I appeal to him to rip it out and show farmers that he cares deeply about the crisis by doing a few things on the ground to preserve the industry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Many hon. Members are anxious to speak. If contributions are as brief as possible, I hope that not too many people will be disappointed.

Ms Joan Walley: I shall try to be brief, not least because I was not able to hear the opening speeches in full because of my commitment to sit on a Select Committee. I apologise for that.
On behalf of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, I thank my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for their hard work and dedication, which Opposition Members also acknowledged. In Staffordshire, we are keeping our fingers crossed that we will escape the disease. I congratulate the Minister on his work, in particular for the information that has been made readily available on the website and for the full transparency surrounding events.
The words "foot and mouth" do strike terror in communities—I remember the 1967 outbreak. My late mother, many years before, had lived through a series of animals being killed and burned. The disease has brought terror to generations of farming communities. That is why it is so important that we do everything that we can to deal with it.
I have misgivings about the scale of agricultural production. I hope that this terrible crisis will mean that we have a debate about how to ensure that we look after the needs of local agricultural production. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I, too, have campaigned in the House for ways to protect smaller abattoirs, not least because of their contribution to the production of organic food.
I shall concentrate not on animal health, but on public health. I note that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency have clearly stated that the crisis poses no direct risk to public health. I agree with them.
In any crisis, the first task is to get the emergency services to deal with the situation as it presents itself. Urgent action is being taken to deal with the current situation, but there will be secondary effects. I seek reassurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will liaise with others, not least environmental health officers. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Where it is essential that carcases are burned following slaughter, it is important that there is

consultation locally About the most appropriate place to do that. What liaison has there been with the chartered institute, local environmental health officers, water companies and the Environment Agency?
It is crucial that where there are vast pyres of slaughtered animals, none of the remains or the ash gets into water courses and systems. We want to avoid contamination of any kind. Joint action is needed by the Ministry, including its vets, and local authorities, waste agencies, the Environment Agency and environmental health officers. I should be grateful for assurances that liaison is taking place between the right people so that on-going problems can be dealt with.
Those pyres should not be sited close to food producers because we do not want cross-contamination to occur. In view of the work done by the Pennington taskforce on E. coli 0157, what risk assessment has been carried out of the possibility of E. coli 0157 reaching water supplies? What is the risk of fires burning at an insufficiently high temperature, which could mean that there is a danger of remains containing pathogens contaminating the ground and, subsequently, water courses? That is a critical point in view of the high number of private water supplies throughout the country.
What is being done about the risk of salmonella? The speed and temperatures at which the carcases are burned may mean that residue could contaminate the water supply. There is also concern about the destruction of prions. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many of the cattle that are being slaughtered, and how many of those that have been burned, are in the high risk, over-30-month category? What precautions are the Government taking? Other public health issues include green-top milk, about which we need assurance. How do all those issues affect the Food Standards Agency?
The Government are rightly concentrating all their-efforts on the dangers posed by the outbreak. However, I should be grateful for assurances on the secondary issues about which I am concerned and about the local consultation procedures that will be put in place.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I speak for three reasons. First, I have been a beef farmer in my constituency from long before I represented it in this place. Secondly, I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. Thirdly by strange co-incidence, I was a young graduate researcher who acted as secretary to the specialist committee of Conservative Members in the affected areas that reported on the outcome of the 1967–68 epidemic. I have some back knowledge of these matters.
I am sure that the slaughter and stamping-out policy is the right one. We all agree that we must leave the vets and the authorities to get on with the job and not get in their way. The debate has not frustrated them in that sense. In my view, anything else must be secondary to that.
In the interests of time, I shall make four brief points about the current situation, and then move on to the medium and longer term. In Northamptonshire, there has been one outbreak just outside my constituency. There is concern about disinfectant, which the Minister has substantially answered. There are some slight concerns about price gouging. Given the 1967 experience, the right


hon. Gentleman needs to be certain that all the disinfectants that he is prepared to license are equally effective against the foot and mouth virus. There were concerns about that in 1967.
Secondly, many colleagues have spoken about compensation. I add the consideration that if foot and mouth disease develops into a full-blown epidemic and there are large-scale slaughterings there will be a tendency for the prices of replacement stock to drift upwards. The right hon. Gentleman will have to bear that in mind. Thirdly, there is the question of the resources that are available to the Minister. He responded satisfactorily by saying that he woultl be able to draw in other veterinary assistance, if necessary from the European Union or further afield.
There is also the importance of administration and the Ministry. We had some experience of these matters when the BSE crisis hit us in March 1996. Members, local authorities and other public bodies should be informed of the need to keep everybody up to speed. It is necessary also to plan for possible contingencies. I shall mention two. The first is whether the census will have to be put off; the second is what will happen to the county council elections, let alone one or two other possible elections at that time.
It is important that the Minister has sufficient firepower. It is important also that he should have an extra string to his bow—so he might gei one or two bright officials who are not on the job to consider what has happened, to review the 1967 and subsequent experience and, as it were, to think outside the box so that the right hon. Gentleman can be kept up to speed.
Fourthly, I declare a direct interest in the licensed slaughter scheme. It happens that a motorway was built through my farm, and I have stock 400 yd down wind of it. Northamptonshire is criss-crossed by motorways and other major roads. I hope that the Minister will have regard to the importance of local disposal of stock—given the extreme virulence of foot and mouth disease, he should not even inadvertently pave the way for an incubating animal to take a trail of virus throughout the country, as happened to some extent before we knew that that could happen.
Those are my immediate concerns. In the medium term, there is a worry that the Minister and his policy of slaughter and stamping out will corm under pressure. We hope that the disease will be contains d by the rapid action that the right hon. Gentleman has taken, and we are pleased that he has done that. There is a striking difference from 1967. In contrast td everything that has been said about the intensification of the industry, there has been an intensification of media interest. When we got to the point where hundreds of thousands of animals were slaughtered, there was huge concern and people began to ask whether we were doing the right thing, and whether we would have to move to a vaccination policy, on a selective or a general basis.
We all very much hope that that will not happen. Perhaps, like Queen Victoria, the right hon. Gentleman must not counsel the possibility of defeat, but if he is a wise Minister, he will have that in mind as a long-term contingency, and he would be prepared to consider it if it ever became necessary. As we deal with the situation, it is extremely important that both the short-term tactical

considerations, some of which I have advanced, and the rolling concern that I am sure will develop are properly handled.
From my experience at that time, I believe that the then shadow Minister, the late Joe Godber, of whom I was very fond and for whom I worked for a number of years, would have been proud of the speech made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). We emphasise the same sort of approach, but it depends on a degree of reciprocity, which the Minister has shown himself ready to undertake. He must be prepared to receive confidences and representations from all round the House and, if necessary, to share them.
When the pressures that we were experiencing became extreme, Joe Godber asked the then Minister, the late Fred Peart, who was widely respected, whether he could have a briefing from the chief vet. I happened to be the only other person in the room when that briefing was given. It was extremely useful and gave us a detailed and authoritative professional sitrep on where we were and how the epidemic could be contained and eventually stamped out, as I am confident it will be in the present case.
There is one final longer-term consideration for the Minister. I have dismissed from my remarks some of the speculation that properly exists about the origin of the outbreak. No doubt there will be deficiencies in the handling; there always are. There are already queries about information. The Minister should not be ashamed of that, and we should not press him too hard on it.
There will also be longer-term considerations about the structure of the agriculture industry, its intensification, and whether, for example—I mention this only as a possibility—it will be necessary to think in terms of a rest period between a series of moves. That would be very difficult for the commercial trade in agriculture, but it may come to that.
Those are all long-term considerations. In 1968, after the epidemic was contained within a period of six months and at a cost of almost 500,000 head of livestock, it was decided that there should be an authoritative report under a distinguished independent chairman into the entire matter and the lessons that were to be learned.
I suggest to the Minister that there will be serious long-term issues to consider. They need not be party politically contentious, but they will undoubtedly be sensitive areas. The best course may be for him to put them on one side for now. Perhaps we would back him on that, against the promise that when the outbreak is over, he will commission an independent inquiry to look at all the factors. That will help in the way that Lord Phillips did in relation to BSE.
Let us concentrate on the job today. Let us be aware that there are wider implications, which many hon. Members in all parts of the House have rehearsed. Let us hope, above all, that by concentrating on the immediate issue, and by having the right kind of dialogue on how to resolve it and any problems that arise, we can stamp the thing out in good time. Then, it will be the time for a longer look at what needs to be learned.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I do not intend to


repeat points that have already been made, but I may inevitably do so, as unfortunately I have not been present for the whole of the debate. I apologise to the House for that. For part of the evening, I was necessarily engaged elsewhere.
I was present for the opening speeches. In this debate, I have no difficulty in supporting the Opposition motion. I am grateful to them for the opportunity to say that.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister. His contribution to today's debate will be remembered with credit by many of us for a long time. For me—I still consider myself to be a new Member although I have been here for four years—it was a singular honour to hear his contribution.
I have not been present throughout the debate, and, in the interests of brevity, I hope that hon. Members will understand if I abandon references to their contributions; but I cannot allow the contribution from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to pass without comment. It is appropriate that I should speak on the subject shortly after him for two reasons.
It is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman introduced his remarks with a reference to foxhunting. I have heard his views on that subject before, and we have debated them in the Scottish media. I have also heard his views on whether I should have a view in this place on foxhunting, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. However, we can agree on the importance of agriculture to my constituency, where the hon. Gentleman has his roots. Last year I had the pleasure of hosting him and his mother at the farm where his ancestor made the first Dunlop cheese in the village of Dunlop. It was a beautiful afternoon, as I remember it.
The area within a 35-mile radius of the main town in my constituency, Kilmarnock, supplies between 25 and 30 per cent. of Scotland's milk. The high rainfall which that area experiences is conducive to grass growing, not grain crops. Ayrshire is consequently one of the most intensive livestock areas in Europe. When one adds to that the fact that 15 per cent. of Scotland's over-30-months scheme cattle come to Kilmarnock to be slaughtered, I am sure that the House will appreciate why a collective sigh of relief emanated from Ayrshire farmers when the news came through that the farm in Aberdeen had proved negative. No one in Scotland wants to see the funeral pyres associated with the eradication of this terrible disease. Currently, Scotland is disease free, and, of course, we want to keep it that way.
Although relieved, Scottish farmers are not complacent about that. This evening, there are threats in a parish which abuts my constituency, and I understand that there are checks in Dumfriesshire, the county south of Ayrshire. That is why farmers in Scotland, and particularly in Ayrshire, fully support the Government in their aim to eradicate this dreadful disease. They support all the restrictions that have been placed on the movement of livestock and have issued a collective call to the public in full support of the Government's advice to keep out of the countryside until foot and mouth can be contained and eradicated. During the past decade, the collapse in the milk price has put enormous pressures on their industry. A serious outbreak could deal it a blow from which it could never recover.
I spoke today to Willie Campbell of Low Holehouse farm in Galston. Despite his address being in my constituency, his fann is not in my constituency. He is the chairman of the Ayrshire NFU, a respected commentator on the industry and currently the Scottish representative on the Milk Development Council. Coincidentally, that council was due to meet in London tomorrow, but, responsibly, he is preparing his contribution with a view to making it by telephone.
Willie Campbell made the same point to me as that made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. This crisis is not only a business tragedy, but a deeply personal tragedy for farmers In Ayrshire. There is no agribusiness there, but there are hundreds of family farms. He conveyed to me a depressing picture of what he and his colleagues and theil, families are facing. The level of anxiety among his fellow farmers is immense. He described to me the terror that he saw etched on the faces of other farmers whom he met recently. He was reassured by the news that the Government intend to draw down their full entitlement to agrimonetary compensation. He said that while that money will not solve the financial pressures that the dairy industry faces, it is welcome news and will make a contribution to easing the pressure.
Willie Campbell also welcomed the proposed licensed movement scheme. In Ayrshire, there are significant numbers of upland sheep that need to be brought home to the lowland fields for lambing. He hopes that the animal welfare considerations implicit in such circumstances will mean that that scheme will allow their movement. It is imperative that it does as some of his ewes are due to lamb tomorrow.
The dairy industry cannot survive unless there is movement of milk. Chat must be done in a manner that ensures that milk tankers cannot carry the infection. For that they depend oil disinfectant. Farmers in Ayrshire today telephoned four suppliers but could manage to secure only 5 litres of disinfectant. They are reassured to some extent by my right hon. Friend's announcement that he intends to place in order today increasing by 35 the types of disinfectant that can be used, but it is the availability of that disinfectant that concerns them. However, it is not only disinfectant that is in short supply in Ayrshire, but the necessary spraying equipment. When it is available, it comes at a cost that some farmers cannot meet.
The farmers of Scotland go to bed tonight praying and hoping that Scotland, which accounts for 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom' s agricultural production, will remain disease free and will be allowed to come back on stream in the not-too-distant future. However, they send a strong message to the House that if it cannot do that, they will join in partnership with farmers, politicians and the Government in trying to eradicate the disease.
Finally, I am reassured that MAFF and the Scottish Executive are working well in partnership. The test of the devolution settlement is how it performs in a crisis, and in this one it is performing well.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for his response to my intervention. He promised to keep the House closely informed not only by being in attendance with his colleague the Minister of State, but also by perhaps


introducing a bulletin or something similar. Those remarks are deeply appreciated. He has done a great deal today to unite the House. The tone of the debate was brilliantly set by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and the Minister responded in an exemplary manner. We are all grateful to him and we want to help him.
I should like to make one point, as that is all that I have time to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made an extremely perceptive and powerful speech that was based on much experience. He told the Minister that he should vot worry too much about the phrase "creating a precedent", as we have an unprecedented situation. I remember well the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 1967, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr Boswell) spoke so eloquently a few moments ago. That was contained within parts of England and Wales, but the current outbreak is going all over the place. Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I pray that it will not go north of the border, but it is in Wales already and many parts of England. Of course, the time is coming when agriculture will be on its knees in a way that did not happen in 1967.
Agriculture is not only the basic industry of this country and the most important of all our indigenous industries, but is responsible for the countryside that we all love and cherish. The consequential effects of a devastating and desolating epidemic would be felt not, only by those who practise agriculture, but by the tourism industry, those who are anxious to bring people to this country and all who have helped to make its wealth in that manner. Thus, although the provision of compensation to enable farming to survive may have elements of tie unprecedented, it should be considered further. I know that the Minister is keen to do all that he can to help, and when he is considering compensation, he should, of course, think primarily of those who are directly affected. However, will he consider all the other farmers who are affected, and also the other industries? Whatever he can do will not only help our great industry of farmits to survive, but aid the survival of the countryside as we know and love it.
It is crucial for every hon. Member, to remember that, as we all have a responsibility. Although very few people work on the land, there is not a single family that does not depend upon those who work on the land and what is produced from it. Every home in this country is affected directly or indirectly by the state of agriculture, and every family will be affected in some way by the extent of the epidemic. It is absolutely right that the Minister should use every weapon in his armoury to try to contain and then defeat the disease. He should have unqualified support from all hon. Members and all parts of the country in what he seeks to do.
We should not be diverted by other matters. If it is necessary to postpone a census or a county council election, it must be postponed.
As for the general election, the Government have a massive majority, an unfinished programme in other spheres and 15 months of their tern, left. In my view, it would be far better to answer to the electorate when the full five-year term has been completed. It is crucial that nothing should divert our attention, from fighting this appalling disease or from ensuring that British agriculture emerges from it with the optimism mat the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) wants it to have.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall be brief. I say amen to what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, or 95 per cent. of it anyway, which was very sound indeed. I offer my sympathy to my constituents, Robin Lloyd and family and David Thomas and family, who have had their outbreaks confirmed today. The situations of several other farmers in my constituency are under close examination.
I am pleased to report that Powys county council has made the whole of Powys a prohibition area. The county holds a quarter of a million acres of common land and about 1 million sheep, and the situation is serious because outbreaks have occurred on the boundary of mountain land. I hate to think what would happen if the disease spread to that.
I want to make a few brief points. In 1967, when I was working in Northumberland, I was involved on the periphery of the outbreak and what I saw was appalling. I have been a farmer, managing 1,500 acres, and I was brought up on a farm. I commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who gave the Minister some sound advice. The methods of disposal being used now are the same as those used in 1967. Huge heat has to be generated to get rid of the disease, but I wonder why the incineration process involves a delay. It could start a lot earlier and there could be graduated burning.
Access is a problem. On Sunday, 100 people from Ross-on-Wye appeared in my constituency even though the Ministry of Defence has banned people from entering its 32,000 acre estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) realises the importance of that matter. On protection, there is no doubt that lorries need to be sprayed when they enter certain areas and that disinfection pads need to be put in place. The situation at Burnside farm buildings—I know where it is and that is what I prefer to call it—is very serious. If the disease was present for two weeks, an education and training problem clearly needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.
Imports from third countries are a problem and I alert the Minister to the fact that a person cannot enter New Zealand with even a sandwich in his pocket—it would be incinerated. We must be that particular in respect of the situation in Britain and food brought in at airports and ferry ports should be burned on sight and destroyed. Also, I urge the Minister to consider banning pig swill. Cutbacks have affected Ministry vets and veterinary investigation centres have been closed. That loss must be examined as well.
We must consider consequential loss compensation not only for farmers, but for organisations such as Farmers Ferry, which operates out of my constituency and has exported 1 million lambs in the past 12 months. It will find it hard to continue. We must consider that fact, because we need the infrastructure to continue after the crisis is over. We must be eternally vigilant and must show no complacency in attacking the disease, which, as we know, is highly infectious. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on what they have done so far.
Keeping the food chain going is vital for the future of the industry and the movement of livestock direct to abattoirs is one of the most important points that has been referred to this evening. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about the


need for support for the industry: it is vital at this time. I believe that the nation, and those who are present here now, want the contingency fund to be used. I think that the current outbreak could prove more serious than that of 1967, and that it needs to be tackled head on in terms of protection and, indeed, compensation.
The industry needs a future, and if we are not careful it will not have one. However, following the Minister's statements this evening I am confident that he will ensure somehow that it survives and, eventually, prospers.

Mr. James Paice: We have heard from many Members on both sides of the House with direct constituency involvement in this tragic crisis. Sadly, the number of Members with such involvement has increased day by day—an increase that we all hope will cease.
We have heard in particular from my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), both of whom are directly involved, and both of whom made excellent points. I especially appreciated the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who cut his speech off in its prime to allow time for the statement about the rail crash.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) demonstrated his experience as a farmer, a Minister and a political adviser, recalled the last major outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and—as others have said—presented a number of sensible proposals.
Last week, while using the opportunity of a parliamentary recess to take a few days off, I received a phone call saying that there had been an outbreak of foot and mouth. Like other Members, I am sure, I asked myself how much more British farming would have to take at this dreadful time. That thought was immediately followed by a comment to my wife: "Poor old Nick must wonder what he did in a previous life to deserve this." He may tell us—or perhaps the Minister of State will tell us.
I have to say that my sympathy evaporated rapidly on Monday, when I heard the Minister's outburst over this debate. He has regained his composure, however, and, as many Members have said this evening, he has redeemed himself totally by his manner—by the way in which he has addressed the issues, and by the courtesies he has shown both on the Floor of the House and privately to me.
We have heard many speeches and interventions, which shows that this subject is of real interest to many Members. I hope the Minister now accepts that it was right to hold the debate—a debate that has taken place against the background of an industry in crisis. The industry is losing 400 jobs a week, and experiencing year-on-year financial losses. Net farm incomes are lower than living expenses, and there are no reserves on which to rely. Upland livestock incomes are about £2,500 a year, while lowland livestock incomes are about £1,500.
I too remember the 1967 outbreak. It happened just after I started work in farming. It lasted about five months, and I pray, as others must do, that this outbreak is dealt with more quickly and does not last as long. It has horrendous implications for animals as well as human

beings. For obvious reasons we have talked about farm animals today, but we should not overlook the threat posed to animals in zoos, including many rare species of antelope and other cloven-hooved animals. The unique wild cattle of Chilli lgham are threatened, as is wildlife, including our deer population. But of course it is even worse for farmers, many of whom are seeing their life's work being wiped cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham also made some tremendously potent remarks about the human factor in the context of, for instance, schools.
Many people who do not understand agriculture may find it perverse that farmers who breed and rear stock simply so that it can be killed and eaten should, at the same time, care passionately for that stock and its welfare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out, however, many of those farmers have spent decades breeding pedigree stock to a high level—stock that now goes to the flames in the same way as the humblest mongrel bullock.
The tragedy was brought home to me the other night when I saw one of my oldest friends being interviewed on television as his stock were being slaughtered in the background behind him. I understood and empathised with him and with many other farmers as that happened.
I join in the tributes that have been paid to Ministry officials, to the vets and to all the others not directly employed who have been and are closely involved in the crisis. I strongly welcome the Minister's robust rejection of the idea of vaccination, a line for which he will have our support.
Farmers are affected in two different ways. There are those whose herds are compulsorily slaughtered and who receive full compensation equivalent to the value of the stock. However—thew Minister has not mentioned it, but I presume that this true—they will not be allowed to restock for some six months, as was the case in 1967. Therefore, they will have no income on which to live. They will have to live off the capital that comes from that compensation—not a situation that we would wish to encourage.
Then there is the group of farmers—a much larger group, I am thankful to say—who are not slaughtered out, but who are hit by th movement restrictions and the other problems that will increase as the crisis lasts. I welcome the Minister's comments about a licensing scheme. Obviously, we all look forward to hearing the details, such as how it might help smaller producers, those who produce for farmers markets, those who have cattle coming up to 30 months old, and those who have lambs rising to the end or their lambhood with the potential eruption of their second teeth, the carcases of which need to be split. The scheme will be welcomed by many abattoir workers, including those in my constituency who have contacted me, anxious about the future of their jobs.
I understand that there are derogations for injured animals and casualties, but I am told that those are somewhat complicated. I ask the Minister to find out whether they can be simplified. I do not know whether he is in a position to say what the position is regarding TB reactors. Rightly, we have heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about the TB situation. Obviously, reactors should not be held on farms longer than is necessary.
There are other movement issues. The Minister showed that he recognised those. There is the issue of moving sheep into buildings or near to land for lambing. There are sheep on agistment, or tack as it is sometimes called—a feature that often expires today, 28 February, when they would be expected to go back to their upland farms. That is an issue not only for the sheep farmer, but for the dairy farmer, on whose grass they are currently grazing. The Minister obviously understands that.
If we can regain some of the supply trade through the licensing arrangement that the Minister proposes, the issue of prices will still remain. I appreciate that getting the trade going is the first priority. I welcome his comments with regard to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) on private storage for sows. I hope that he will also consider introducing such a scheme for sheepmeat because that product, too, relied on an export market, which for the moment is denied us. That must hit trade particularly.
We welcome the agrimonetary compensation. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is already having discussions with the clearing banks, but I emphasise the need for further help in the form of compensation. The need for help will increase the longer the outbreak lasts. This is a national emergency, and Conservative Members believe that that justifies a call on the contingency fund.

Mr. Nicholls: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the Minister and the wary in which he has conducted himself in this debate, which has been exemplary, but does not the country's ability to face up to the consequences of what has happened depend largely on the success of the economy? For all sorts of reasons, the economy is doing extremely well. Although it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to give an open-ended commitment to compensate everyone for everything, the situation is vastly different from that in 1967. We hope that he will be able to say that he will at least consider a slightly wider band of compensation than he perhaps has so far been able to consider.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend makes an important point in support of my case. It is not entirely true that there is no precedent for further compensation. My attention has been drawn to remarks made in 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in which he mentioned moving towards compensation for consequential loss. Additionally, the over-30-months scheme itself is a form of compensation for loss.

Mr. Nick Brown: indicated assent.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges that. Consequential compensation could save money if it shortens the crisit. If agisted sheep, which I mentioned earlier, cannot retarn to their original farms, it might be cheaper, however horrendous that may be, to kill them out and provide compensation than it would be to succumb to the temptation to weaken the restriction orders.
I should like to mention some of the organisations that deal with the impact on farmers—including the rural stress information network, the Royal Agricultural

Benevolent Institution and the Samaritans, which have reported a tenfold increase in calls in the past few days. Last year, the Government provided more money for the rural stress information network. Although it was a tiny sum for the Government, it was not a small sum for the organisation. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it needs more help.
The Opposition strongly support both the legal and the voluntary measures to restrict movement. I hope that the Minister will confirm that all Government agencies—not only the obvious ones such as the Health and Safety Executive and farm assurance, but even the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the countless others that are involved in these matters—have been told to cease farm visits.
I hope that the Minister will also do as he suggested in reply to an earlier intervention from me and examine whether the pig development scheme could be extended to cover the position of pig farmers which, as he rightly acknowledged, is somewhat different from that of sheep and cattle farmers.
Earlier, I also mentioned wild deer. Since 1967, the United Kingdom's wild deer population has exploded. Although that is very welcome for many reasons, will the Minister comment on what should be done about wild deer in areas where there are outbreaks? It would be disastrous if the disease were to infect the wild deer population. I do not want one, but is a localised culling of deer necessary to stamp out the disease?
Today is not the time for recrimination, or even for detailed examination of the background to or the causes of the crisis. As the Minister said, we must now concentrate on controlling and eradicating the disease and on helping farmers to get through the crisis. However, the day will come when we have to examine the cause, how it has been handled, and whether it was caused by illegally imported pigmeat.
On that issue, it is now five months since Ministry veterinarians said that the swine fever outbreak was caused by illegally imported pigmeat. To my knowledge, despite several requests from the Opposition, the Government have not yet made a further statement about the origins of that outbreak. I therefore hope that the Government will be considering additional import controls—about which, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, we have repeatedly expressed our concerns. Such measures are not protectionist controls, as he has sometimes chided us, but controls for protection. [Interruption.]
Other import and export issues have to be examined. They may seem far-fetched now, but—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is rabbiting away on the Treasury Bench. The whole of this debate has been conducted in polite appreciation of one another's points of view. I am sorry that he seems to want to alter that at this late stage.
We have to examine, for example, whether the virus is coming from countries where foot and mouth is endemic, but from which we do not import meat. Could it be carried on the surface of fruit, for example? That may seem far-fetched, but it is an issue related to the globalisation of trade that has to be examined.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) talked about what might be called domestic imports, when people bring in items such as sandwiches and other food in their luggage. Another issue is whether


the virus can be carried in semen or embryos, both of which are important export markets for the United Kingdom that have now been closed.
As other hon. Members have said, we shall also have to examine the issue of abattoir closures. My assessment of the way in which the crisis has been unfolding is that, although there are many reasons to lament the closure of abattoirs, and although the initial outbreak in Essex was at an abattoir, most of the cases that we have heard about seem to be related more to livestock markets than to abattoirs. It appears that the very innocent purchase by Mr. Cleave of stock in Northumberland has been the primary cause of the spread of the disease. I feel immensely sorry for him, given the responsibility with which he—unwittingly and innocently—finds himself burdened.
Circulation of livestock is not a new phenomenon. I can remember as a child seeing trainloads of Irish cattle coming into this country to be fattened. That circulation has been going on for decades, and it is not the new development that other hon. Members have suggested.
Foot and mouth is a horrendous disease. It has implications for animals, wildlife, farmers and hauliers, and for the countryside. Some farmers may decide not to restock, and that will have implications for the landscape. Nothing must be left undone in dealing with the outbreak, and I hope that the Minister understands that clearly.
It is very rare to wind up an Opposition day debate without partisan rancour, but I am happy to do so today on an issue that has brought all sides of the House together. I wish the Minister and his staff the best of luck in the challenge that lies before them. Most of all, however, my thoughts are with the farmers and their families, who despair for their future.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Before I respond to the debate, may I briefly associate myself with the sorrow expressed by the whole House at the rail crash earlier today? Many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are, like me, regular users of the east coast main line. Many will have constituents among the passengers or crew, or the relatives of those people. The House has certainly been united in sorrow at that incident.
The House has also been united in this debate on the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and on its effects on farmers, agriculture and the countryside. The length of the debate allowed many issues to be addressed, and I welcome that. It allowed my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is always generous in giving way, to deal with an enormous number of interventions and direct questions from hon. Members of all parties. However, many other issues have been raised in the course of the debate. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and others about the importance of the Government keeping the House informed at every stage about developments with the disease and its effects.
The participant in the debate for whom I have most sympathy is the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He responded in a very public-spirited way to the House's desire to listen to the statement by my

right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, he thereby sacrifice d a large amount of time to which I feel that he would have been entitled, given the importance of events that took place in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman has been very active in pursuit of the interests of his farming constituents and of those employed at the Cheale abattoir. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Bas ildon (Angela Smith) came to see me at an earlier stage to discuss their concerns about the abattoir's ability to attract business under the over-30-months scheme. I therefore know that the hon. Gentleman's interest is of long standing, and that it does not arise solely out of the tragic circumstances of the past week.
The hon. Gentleman addressed some questions to me, one of which was when the abattoir in his constituency might reopen. He will understand that the Ministry must be totally certain that the virus has been totally eradicated first. There are national and European Union rules about the time that must elapse before the various checks and tests can be carried out. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know if we have further information on that point.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned checks on wild deer, an issue referred to also by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The state veterinary service is carrying out a rapid risk assessment and we hope to share the results of that as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Minister gave the House an update of the situation and told us about the number of confirmed cases, which stands at 26. As is usual, and as has happened in regent days, a number of cases are still under investigation, of which two or three at least seem highly suspicious.

Miss Geraldine Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is essential to stop the spread of this awful disease. In my constituency there are a number of caravan parks surrounding farms. l am very concerned that this weekend the caravan parks will be open to tourists, many of whom will come from east Lancashire and the Chorley area and could carry the disease. What measures can local authorities take to stop these people coming to caravan parks? What can thy do to ensure that at least the lanes are properly disinfected with straw put across them? They say that they have no powers to put straw and disinfectant across the lanes.

Ms Quin: The local authority can contact its local animal health office and work in conjunction with MAFF, and it should do so if it is concerned, because there are powers that can be taken. I am familiar with the site that my hon. Friend mentions—in fact, I once visited it. The Caravan Club has issued recommendations to all its members not to trayel at this time of year and to respect a number of restrictions, as well as fully respecting the measures that the Government have put in place.
There are now at least 26 confirmed cases as well as a number of cases under investigation. That figure includes what appears to be the first case in Northern Ireland, in sheep which were smirced from Carlisle market. There is very little consolation, if any, in this situation, but it is worth saying that so far there seems to have been no significant lateral wind-borne spread of disease. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, it has been possible to make


the link between the Devon case, which, in turn, links back to Northumberland, or between Northumberland and the Cheale abattoir. That has been the pattern so far.
As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, there is no doubt that the considerable movement of animals throughout the country means that the situation is very serious. The number of right hon. and hon. Members from virtually all regions of the country who have spoken about their experience of the plight of their farming constituents as a result of the outbreak has borne dramatic testimony to that.
I think that all areas were mentioned. The south-west is a very important agricultural area. It was pointed out that East Anglia has already had tremendous difficulties, particularly with the recent outbreak of classical swine fever. Wales was mentioned, as was tile north-east where, like the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) I, too, saw the gruesome and distressing sight last weekend of animals piled up near the main road, very visible to everyone passing. I was talking to farmers in that area when the case in Devon was confirmed. People in Northumberland told me and the links between the markets in Northumberland and the particular farm, or farms, in Devon which were then affected.
I very much welcome the warm tribute paid by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) to the chief vet, Jim Scudamore, and his excellent staff. The hon. Gentleman's comments were echoed by a large number of Members, but he chose especially apt words to describe the work of the chief vet and his staff. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and others about the helpfulness of Ministry staff, not only at head office but throughout the regions. Indeed, one Northumberland NFU member asked me to mention how sensitively the Ministry staff at Carlisle dealt with the distress and concern that was obviously experienced by so many farmers in that region.
I strongly welcome the support expressed on both sides of the House for the measures taken by the Government. We welcome the terms of the Opposition motion. That is an unusual experience, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire pointed out. I cannot remember a similar occurrence, but we are dealing with exceptional and unprecedented circumstances—a point that was strongly made.
Although obviously we look back io the 1967 outbreak, which many hon. Members recalled when they spoke, we should not make false comparisons. There are many

differences, especially in relation to the difficulties—indeed the crisis—that the agriculture sector has undergone. For that reason, we are being extremely sensitive not only in ensuring that the measures that we have already taken to help farmers are effective, but in considering what else we can do.

Mr. Ainger: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ms Quin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way. I have only three minutes for the rest of my remarks. He expressed concern about the irresponsible movement of stock by farmers—although most farmers have been entirely responsible, as hon. Members have pointed out. However, we are certainly prepared to take up with the Home Office and the police any failure to implement the rules that have been clearly put in place. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
There was much mention of consequential losses and so on. Those are difficult matters. We are open to consideration of ways in which we can help, although I appreciate the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the implications could be extremely far reaching; they could even stretch to the tourist industry, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The issue is not easy, but we shall definitely look into it.
The debate has been impressive, with Members showing a powerful empathy with the plight of farming constituents, their families and communities. We shall keep the House fully informed about the cases and outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, the measures for tackling it and the ways in which we can help the agriculture and food industries to recover. However, as everyone has agreed, combating and eradicating the disease has to be and will remain our foremost aim and priority.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House expresses concern about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, sympathy for farmers facing the loss of their livelihoods and for others working in the livestock sector, and appreciation of the work of those fighting to contain the spread of the disease; endorses the action of the Government to restrict the movement of livestock; welcomes its efforts to identify the source of the outbreak; urges, where necessary, a temporary suspension of rights of way across farmland; welcomes the Government's announcement that it will draw down the full amount of agri-monetary compensation available for livestock farmers; and calls on the Government to consider what other help can be given to the industry.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Eric Forth: This is an important motion, covering extremely important material. It refers at some length and in some detail, and with an element of retrospection, to the detailed salary provisions for the Electoral Commission. Those salaries are very substantial indeed and the commission's work is very important, so the matter will require lengthy and detailed consideration by the House, especially as it has a bearing on political parties, election matters and, of course, referendums. So we should start by considering the motion in considerable detail—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
'()The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],

That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT COMMITTEES)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 40, before the word `European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 50, before the word `European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words:—

`(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings he amended accordingly by inserting, after the word `Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Drink Driving

10 pm

Mr. Howard Flight: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Vivien Sumner of Pulborough. It relates to the tragic death of one person, and the severe injury of another arising from a drunken driving incident. The drunken driver was sentenccd to seven years in jail, with a five-year suspension to run concurrently. It seems nonsense to have concurrency for the suspension of licences and prison sentences because it results in a less effective ban on driving.
The petition states
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward measures which will ensure that any driving ban imposed on persons convicted of drink driving does not begin until their full sentence at conviction is spent irrespective of any shortened sentence.

To lie upon the Table.

NHS (East Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Michael Howard: I am very grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the state of the national health service in east Kent. I asked for this debate for a very simple reason. I have had the great privilege to be the Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe for nearly 18 years. In all that time, I have never received anything like as many complaints from my constituents about the NHS as I have in the past few months. Most of the complaints I have received relate to the William Harvey hospital, but before I come to the hospital, I want to make two other points.
The first relates to the reorganisation of primary care. I was not enthusiastic about the replacement of general practitioner fundholding by primary care groups, but the Shepway primary care group, covering an area almost exactly coterminous with Shepway district council and my constituency, has done well. It has built strong local links and developed a strong local identity. Now, barely two years from its formation, it is to be reorganised, and a possible form of reorganisation would involve a merger with Ashford primary care group. I hope that that merger will not take place. Local links are of great importance in the delivery of primary care. They should be maintained and strengthened, rather than diluted. They would be diluted if this merger were to go ahead.
My second point relates to one particular and specific respect in which health care in east Kent has deteriorated during the past four years. Heart disease is not trivial. Those who are suffering from it should be examined and treated as soon as possible. I am sure that everyone would agree with that. It is therefore worth examining how those who are suffering from heart disease are treated by the NHS now as compared with March 1997, immediately before the general election.
In March 1993, 63 people in east Kent were waiting more than 13 weeks for admission to hospital for cardiovascular surgery. By October 2000, the number had doubled to 124. The number of those waiting more than 13 weeks to see a cardiologist had increased from 40, in March 1997, to 220 at the end of last year. Those figures, alas, speak for themselves and the tale they tell is very bad news for my constituents.
I want to devote most of the time available to me to the state of hospitals in east Kent and, in particular, to William Harvey hospital, which is situated at Willesborough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but which serves most of my constituents.
The remarks that I am about to make are not directed at the staff of the hospital. For the most part, they are striving heroically in the most difficult of circumstances to give their patients the care that they deserve. However, in far too many cases, the patients are not receiving that care.
I have, of necessity, had to make a selection from the many complaints that I have received. Time does not permit me to refer to anything like all of them. I shall begin with the case of Mr. Duff, whose wife came to see me at one of my regular advice centres. This is what I

was told by Mrs. Duff, as set out in a letter that I wrote to the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust on 27 November. I wrote:
Mrs. Duff's husband has a bone marrow problem which requires frequent blood transfusions. In the past these have taken place with no difficulty at all and Mrs. Duff is pleased with the way in which her husband has previously been treated at the William Harvey Hospital. More recently, however, Mr. Duff has had to put up with quite unacceptable conditions. On August 25 he had to wait in the Accident and Emergency Department for 27 hours. On October 2 he had to wait for 30 hours. Last week when Mrs. Duff phoned the hospital on Wednesday, she was told that no bed would be available for her husband until Monday or Tuesday of this week.
I am sure that you would agree that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
The chief executive of the trust replied on 28 December. He said that
the dates you have given for Mr. Duff's admission do not accord with our own records, nevertheless he would have experienced long waits in the period that you describe as did a number of other patients. As you know we are doing all that we can to improve the situation because it is unacceptable.
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Horton, wrote to me on 20 November. This is what they said:
We have a 43 year old son who is blind, mentally handicapped, spastic and confined to a wheelchair. He has to have everything done for him. At the end of last week he was taken ill. The local doctor said he should go to hospital. He was taken to the William Harvey at Ashford.
With considerable restraint, my constituent continues:
I am going to moan … With all of his ailments he had to wait 4 hours in Accident and Emergency at the William Harvey before he was seen by a doctor. He was then sent to a ward where he was looked after O.K. put on a drip with antibiotics plus his tablets.
I'm not moaning at the treatment he received, it is the 4 hour wait. The waiting time to be seen at any hospital is disgusting.
She adds:
So much for T. Blair and Co.
On 24 January, my constituent was sent an apology by the chief executive.
On 26 November, my constituent, Mrs. Anita Law, wrote to me, and this is part of what she said in her letter:
My husband has recently died at the William Harvey Hospital from in particular, abominable sepsis and infection from MRSA.
He went into the hospital for the reversal of a colostomy following an operation for bowel cancer the previous year. He was clear of the cancer and was informed that the operation would involve a week's stay in hospital. At no time was he counselled as to the risks of any post-operative infection or given any facts that would have given him any reason to refuse the operation at that time.
He entered hospital on July 13th and eventually died on the 20th September 2000.
I am writing to you following the recent press and TV coverage of the problem in our Hospitals. As a trainer and assessor within the Hospitality Industry, during the daily visits I made to the William Harvey I was dismayed at its dirty conditions and standards and practices of cleaning and nursing staff. Standards which would not be acceptable to the Catering and Hotel Industry but are deemed perfectly OK for our sick, both young and old… My daughter, whose husband is in the Army, was recently in hospital in Germany following a miscarriage after the death of her father. I visited her there and was extremely impressed at the hospital's standards of cleanliness. It was built just after the end of World War II, probably by us! If our continental neighbours can do it, why not the UK?

Mr. Damian Green: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, the William Harvey hospital is in my constituency, and I echo his remarks about the


conscientiousness of its staff. However, my experience reflects his. When I last visited the hospital, people had been waiting on trolleys in the accident and emergency department for 24 hours. I have received a constant stream of letters and telephone calls from people complaining not about the standard of care, but about the standard of cleanliness and, in particular, of food, which is so important for convalescence. In the years that I have been associated with Ashford, I have never known the health service in a more parlous state.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I am saying.
I shall quote from one more letter. As I have not been able to contact my constituent to obtain her permission to do that, I shall not mention her name. She made an official complaint on 8 August about what she rightly described as the appalling treatment that she received after the delivery of her baby at the William Harvey hospital on 26 June. He was born at two minutes to 5 in the morning. My constituent and her husband expressed concerns about him a number of times during the day. It was not until 10.30 pm that an auxiliary nurse took the baby to the special care unit—an act that might have saved his life.
My constituent's letter of complaint then deals with what happened in the following 24 hours. She was told that her baby might be suffering from Down's syndrome, but that it was not necessary to telephone her husband. Despite her earlier requests, a telephone was not brought to her until 6 am.
When her husband arrived at the hospital, he had trouble getting into the maternity ward. No one seemed to be expecting him and he was told that his wife was on the delivery ward. He asked for a wheelchair to take her to the special care unit, but was told that she had to have breakfast and a shower before she could see her baby. Eventually, after a confrontation between her husband and the staff, she was allowed into the unit and the doctors, who were doing their rounds, were able to explain the situation to her.
It was suggested that she should be moved to a separate room where a video link would be set up so that she could see her baby in the incubator, but when she returned to the ward she was told that the room was not ready because workmen were in it. She was subsequently told that it did not have a working video link anyway. By late afternoon, she was moved to another side room.
Lack of cleanliness is a common theme of the complaints that I have received. My constituent found the toilet in the side room so unclean that she had to put baby wipes on her feet and clean the floor. Her bed sheets were not changed for three days. She eventually changed them herself.
My constituent needed to have her breast milk expressed every few hours so that her baby could be fed down a tube in his nose. To do that, she needed a breast pump. Although she asked several times for it to be sterilised, she often had to wait more than an hour for that to be done. Some of the staff did not know how to sterilise the pump. In the end, she and her husband asked to be shown how to operate it and did the sterilising themselves.
I have not mentioned all the complaints listed by my constituent. She made her official complaint on 8 August last year. Not having received a substantive response, she

wrote to me on 21 December. She said that her baby son was suffering from atopic eczema and rubbed his face raw at night. The waiting list to see a skin specialist was 30 weeks, so she and her husband paid for a private consultation. In her letter, she said:
The National Health Service has failed my family. Who could disagree?
I wrote to the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust about her complaint on 2 January. On 9 January, he sent any constituent a letter informing her that a letter responding to her complaints had been prepared and that it would be signed and sent to her shortly. The chief executive wrote to me on 23 January saying that he had asked for a letter to be sent to my constituent as a matter of urgency. On 5 February, she still had not received the letter. I wrote to the trust again. The letter was not sent until 7 February. Her complaints were upheld.
It gives me no pleasure to recite that litany of abundantly justified grievances. I want my constituents and, for that matter, my family, who have used the accident and emergency department at the William Harvey hospital, to receive decent medical care from the NHS.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a compelling case. Is he aware that a meeting of 81 consultants—almost half of those in east Kent—passed a unanimous motion saying that a lack of capacity is preventing them from delivering quality health care? Is it not ironic that in the face of those problems, East Kent health authority is still committed to a £100 million reorganisation that, at best, will leave capacity unaltered and may even reduce it?

Mr. Howard: There is no doubt that the consultants' view gives rise to a great deal of concern. I do not pretend that the national health service in east Kent was perfect until four years ago, but I know that it has deteriorated during the past four years. I have never before received complaints of the kind, on the scale and in the number that I am receiving now.
Yesterday, I received a document entitled "Moving Forward: A strategic outline case for modernising hospital services in East Kent". It contained the following sentence:
The NHS plan gives East Kent the opportunity to maintain the current bed baseline it 1,975, although there may be some realignment between the number of acute and intermediate beds within the health economy as a whole.
That will give no comfort to my constituents who spent such lengthy periods in the accident and emergency department because no bed was available for them in a ward. It will give no comfort to all my constituents who fear that at any time they may find themselves in that position.
In the light of that sentence, I hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, will not spin us fantasies about what may or may not happen in the far-off future. The condition of the NHS in east Kent today is unacceptable. My constituents and I want to know how and why that situation has come about and what the Government propose to do about it now. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on securing this debate. He wants high-quality health services for his constituents, and I can assure him that the Government want that too. That is why we are undertaking a major programme of long-term investment and reform in the NHS. The investment will bring more staff, more beds, more new hospitals and reform in the way in which health care is delivered. Patients will be treated in modern, high-quality facilities with the latest equipment and the best-trained staff. Reliability will be improved and waiting times will be cut. Of course, that will take time to deliver, but the NHS today is the fastest-growing health service of any major country in Europe.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Stuart: I will give way, ever though I am only one minute into my speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to answer certain questions, he might like to give me time to do so.

Mr. Howard: I am very sorry to intervene so soon, but the investment to which the Minister referred will not lead to more beds. The document that I received yesterday made it clear that an increase in bed numbers is not intended in east Kent.

Ms Stuart: I would be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would listen so that I can outline not only what we are doing now, but the overall direction of our policies and how they will improve matters. I remind him that the situation that he and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described did not suddenly occur on 1 May 1997. Opposition Members might reflect for a moment on the causes of that situation.
I turn now to an outline of our policies and how we are improving matters not only in the William Harvey hospital but in the whole of Kent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is most concerned about how the reforms and investment will affect his constituents, and that is right and proper. East Kent health authority will receive £469.6 million in 2001–02. That is a real-terms increase of 6.2 per cent. on the previous year and around 40 per cent. on the £262.7 million that it received in 1996–97.
Significant additional funds have been made available to the health authority this financial year to address the pressures from emergency admissions experienced in recent months. Those include almost £2.2 million for accident and emergency admissions, almost £1.6 million to expand critical care services, £400,000 for elective capacity in the private sector to cut waiting lists, and £1.15 million to deal with winter pressures. As the right hon. and learned Member can see, there are good foundations on which to build.
Before I turn to the changes in east Kent, I shall deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns about primary care trust reconfigurations. I understand that there is support for a stand-alone, shared-way primary care trust. The configuration of PCTs in east Kent is a matter for local determination, and I will ensure that the

right hon. and learned Gentleman's views are brought to the attention of the health authority. The decision will be very much a local one.
I return to the foundation on which we have been building. We cannot maintain the status quo; that must be accepted. Health services in east Kent cannot stand still—they need to change. They need to be modernised to ensure that everyone receives faster, fairer and more convenient services.
The way forward has already been decided. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the east Kent reconfiguration, which will centralise specialist services at Ashford and Margate and retain a core of local services at Canterbury. That was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) following extensive consultation in 1998.
At no point during the process has the driving force for change in east Kent been financial savings. That force has been the need to modernise services. For that to take place, there will be expansion of the William Harvey and the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospitals and refurbishment of Kent and Canterbury and Buckland hospitals. On 15 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that work will begin this year to procure these £102 million developments. They will ensure that everyone in east Kent receives the NHS services for which we are striving. We will not turn back from this.
In the shorter term, I appreciate that change is unsettling and that there will always be people who would have preferred an alternative course of action. However, the decision has been made, and I believe that it is the right one. Everyone must now work together to ensure that the changes are a success.
I want to be clear. I am not saying that everything is perfect in east Kent. Of course it has not been perfect, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has provided examples to illustrate that. I want to focus on the direction in which we are heading. The expansions and refurbishments will take time to complete, and I am aware that the transitional arrangements are causing some concern. However, things are not as bad as they are sometimes painted. I shall give a few examples.
At the William Harvey hospital, a new ward with an extra 54 beds opened in July 2000 to allow transfer of acute medicine from Buckland hospital. A 19-bed medical acute assessment unit opened in August 2000, and the critical care unit was enlarged from six to 10 bed spaces in December 2000. At the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, the critical care unit was expanded from five to 10 bed spaces in December 2000, and a new block with an extra 75 beds, including a 23-bed medical acute assessment unit, was opened to accommodate catchment change from the Canterbury area in January 2001. At Kent and Canterbury hospital, December 2000 saw expansion of the surgical ward block by 18 beds, the establishment of a separate gynaecological unit and the expansion of renal in-patient beds.
More action is required in the interim period and other actions are due to come on stream in the near future. These include the completion of a new cross-sectional imaging suite at the William Harvey hospital, the opening of an extra operating theatre and the starting of a £1.1 million modernisation of the accident and emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother


hospital. At the Kent and Canterbury hospital, there will be the completion of the refurbishment of the day surgery area in April. There will also be the completion of a purpose-built unit for the health care of older people service, including two rehab wards, a stroke unit, a therapy centre and day hospital in June, and the opening of the new cataract centre in July.
I fully accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns that the situation in east Kent is not perfect. However, we are making steady progress. We are not talking about aspirations in the distant future; something really has happened. There are positive developments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given examples to show that the NHS in east Kent has failed a small number of patients in recent months. I say a small number, and I do not mean to lessen the seriousness of the individual cases, but we need to get them in perspective.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of how many more complaints he has received recently about the NHS. To get a sense of proportion, the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust received 266 letters of complaint between October and December last year. During the same period, it received 2,392 letters of thanks. As Members of Parliament, we all know how much more likely it is that a letter of complaint, rather than a letter of thanks, will be sent. We must not forget the many patients who do not have cause to complain.

Mr. Howard: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have listened carefully and patiently to what she has said. She has spent considerable time speaking about her future plans. Can she please tell the House how those future plans, even the long-term plans, will address the problems that I described, if all they aspire to do is to maintain the current bed baseline in east Kent? If there are not more beds, how will people be admitted to the wards more quickly, rather than spending dreadful periods in the accident and emergency department?

Ms Stuart: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not consider it presumptuous on my part if I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with his analysis of the problem. What I have described are not future changes; they have already happened. Change was needed because maintaining the status quo would not be acceptable.
The number of beds must be seen in the context of what has happened in respect of medical assessment units, better bed bureaux, better management, the intermediate care that is being put in place, and what we are doing together with social services with regard to home care packages. The national beds inquiry made it clear that the decline in the number of acute beds cannot continue, but a range of other provisions must be put in place.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the package as a whole. The experiences of his constituents that he described are convincing evidence that change is needed in Canterbury and the whole of Kent. I was particularly struck by his comments about dirty hospitals. Yes, some of our hospitals have cut back on cleaning, and I remind Opposition Members how that

came about. It is a result of the way in which the previous Government managed the NHS. It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads; that is the truth.

Mr. Green: I shall he brief, as I know that the hon. Lady does not have much time. First, my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear, as did I in my intervention, that we are speaking about managerial problems that have occurred in the past two years. That has nothing to do with what happened long in the past or what will happen long into the future. We are discussing care at the William Harvey hospital now.
The second point that the Minister has not addressed is that, in the end, we will have roughly the same bed numbers, yet her Government plan to increase the size of Ashford by 3,000 houses a year for the next 15 years. To say that the same bad numbers will be adequate for the population of east Kent is risible.

Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman simply has not listened. It is a matter not only of bed management and acute bed numbers, but of home care packages and rehabilitation. The situation must be looked at in the round.
I shall refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). We have had Adjournment debates on his concerns. As an immediate response to the letter to which he referred, the acting regional director for the South East regional office asked the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust and East Kent health authority jointly to undertake an urgent review of those concerns. The trust has agreed to some of the actions proposed
The status quo is unacceptable. I have outlined the steps that we are taking and the direction in which we are moving. I recognise that the reconfiguration in east Kent has been particularly unpopular in some quarters, but let us not be fooled—some of the opposition is based on self-interest, not the interest of east Kent as whole. Ministers must think of east Kent as a whole.
That is not to say that some of the issues raised locally are not valid. Of course they are. Let us be clear that the Government will take immediate action where NHS services are failing to deliver, but we will not allow much-needed progress to be derailed. If we did, the only people to lose out would be the people of east Kent.
The modernisation of east Kent will proceed. The programme of change has gone well so far. I acknowledge that there have been some problems in east Kent in recent months, but I stress that those have not been caused by the reconfiguration. They are a sign of the need to invest in and modernise the service in east Kent, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Apart from the changes that I have outlined, by March 2001 there will be better separation of emergency medicine and elective surgery, and the potential preparation of a dedicated gynaecology unit at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital. By April 2001, we expect to see the completion of a new cross-section imaging suite at the William Harvey hospital, an extra operating theatre is due to open at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, and the refurbishment of the day surgery area is expected to be completed at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. By spring 2001, there will be a £1.1 million modernisation of the accident and emergency


unit and the completion of a purpose-built health care and older people's services unit, including two rehab wards, stroke unit, therapy centre and day hospital at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The transfer of services for the elderly from Nunnery Fields hospital will be managed much better. By July 2001, the new cataract centre is expected to open, subject to planning permission.
To say that no progress has been made is simply not the case. I accept that there are problems in the transition, but the direction of travel is clear. The outcome that we want is a better health service for all the people of east Kent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 7th March, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sessional Order of 7th November 2000 (Deferred Divisions) votes on divisions which have been deferred until half past Three o'clock on that day shall be recorded for one and a half hours after half past Five o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division.

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 119.

Division No. 138]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Allan, Richard
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bailey, Adrian
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cotter, Brian


Beard, Nigel
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cox, Tom


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Best, Harold
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brake, Tom
Dobbin, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Burnett, John
Etherington, Bill


Burstow, Paul
Feam, Ronnie


Butler, Mrs Christine
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flynn, Paul


Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Galloway, George


Chaytor, David
Gapes, Mike


Chidgey, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gidley, Sandra


Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gunnell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hancock, Mike
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harvey, Nick
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hendrick, Mark
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moore, Michael



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan


Hume, John
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hutton, John


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Joyce, Eric
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Prosser, Gwyn


Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Khabra, Piara S
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Livsey, Richard
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Love, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salter, Martin


McCabe, Steve
Sanders, Adrian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shipley, Ms Debra






Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tyler, Paul


Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Spellar, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wareing, Robert N


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Webb, Steve


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stunell, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Woodward, Shaun


Temple—Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phill


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel


Brady, Graham
Fabricant Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman





Fox, Dr Liam
Mates, Michael


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Pickles, Eric


Green, Damian
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Robathan, Andrew



Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hayes, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Michael


Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Loughton, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Walter, Robert


McCrea, Dr William
Waterson, Nigel


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maginnis, Ken
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maples, John

Question accordingly agreed to.